From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!bcklog1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:54:26 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:41:56 -0400 From: Jeffrey Creem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... References: <449660f0$0$11077$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171 X-Trace: sv3-qTyiI9GRMavxe11KWm25giA+PCgITPcYzri8MTacYfrAlLuzFDIvJo5h8kdcMP5M8QUIa4/Dfi96b1W!FAO37c9MnxlTH+RLlJ4YaOZXdqq99bsZGgynqjK7/MduyS2EXVlZjFzkHuN+a4uZIn/Q2eF71DxU!UEA= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4962 Date: 2006-06-24T07:41:56-04:00 List-Id: Michael Bode wrote: > Jeffrey Creem 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.