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

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:

> ...in an related thread there is a discussion of the license for
> GtkAda. I just looked at some source files of the CVS Version
> (https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/GtkAda/) and they still read:
> 
> ...
> -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from  --
> ...
> 
> If this means you need a written statement signed by Robert Dewar to
> be sure you won't be sued by Adacore if you use it in a CSS project,
> then probably I better read that Java book on my bookshelf. (I'm not
> the one who decides what licence my code has, I'm only the one who
> decides what language it is written in.)

That exactly was my problem here after hearing the quote in
question. 

My _original_ problem was, that ACT doesn't state the copyright
situation on their libre-site, and that the available sources have the
GMGPL header in the ada files but not mentioning of a linking
exception in COPYING or README (compare that with florist (3.15p or
prior), which states the linking exception very clearly in the README,
which would be the traditional place to do). So the actual licensing
is somewhat unclear especially in the recent historical context of ACT
having acquired the habit to change licenses to GPL.

I'll not try to assess this situation yet, until I have done more
research. 

But if you want to have an opportunity to get some ugly ideas on your
own, just diff the "GPL" florist sources distributed from the ACT site
against the the 3.15p florist sources. Don't forget to throw away
Makefile*, INSTALL*, README* and configure* first since they would
have no impact on the license and configure is automatically generated
and accounst for around half the size of the diff.

Regards -- Markus