Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>]

Michael Bode wrote:
> Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it
>>really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the
>>GPL. 
> 
> 
> If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that
> Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily
> create a 'derived work' of Microsoft Windows(TM) by writing any
> program that uses any Windows DLL. And you don't have to stick
> Microsoft's EULA to it, you can even licence it under GPL.
> 

Which is why I indicated that this was under the strictest 
interpretations of the GPL. I am not indicating what would "stand up in 
court" but I am telling you what I believe is the FSF position.

If you take something like the GNU scientific library and dynamically 
link to it would be seen as trying to work around the GPL and not seen 
as trying to meet the intent of the license since if that is what the 
authors wanted, they would have gone with the LGPL for that library.

The question of whether or not it is more or less free than a microsoft 
EULA is irrelevant because the "free" here is the FSF version of free 
which has almost nothing to do with what everyone seems to want it to mean.

FSF free is intended to use copyright law to whenever possible force 
authors to release their software as "free" whenever they release their 
software.

Anyone that thinks that the intention of the GPL is anything other than 
that is totally missing the point of the FSF.

Note this is specifically why the LGPL was changed from library GPL to 
lesser GPL because people were too often just assuming that all 
libraries should use the LGPL and thus there were not enough cases where 
people were forced to release their code under "free" terms.