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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 08:32:47 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ly7ea8mm74.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <5c6d8e37-b737-4a8b-b601-0d0b4c10756b@googlegroups.com>
	<ff343399-8c00-467e-997c-0c6fb87f807a@googlegroups.com>
	<qcgpro$lmi$1@dont-email.me>
	<29e20858-6e53-4e52-a5e0-6ff7cb0d8f74@googlegroups.com>
	<f627b458-8155-43b1-8220-8524e801d389@googlegroups.com>
	<1f5a3876-a27a-439a-bcf8-d24d96e437a4@googlegroups.com>
	<d1ba037d-d355-45c9-a4f5-e51b65c0613e@googlegroups.com>
	<6b285165-962a-4bde-ae3a-87c72003a08f@googlegroups.com>
	<qcm854$1dq$1@dont-email.me>
	<72cd2636-75dc-4aef-9636-0230c78e287c@googlegroups.com>
	<qcmenm$7r0$1@dont-email.me> <lyblzlm4zc.fsf@pushface.org>
	<qcmr4b$sni$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="a7df9e4056d1dc48c81feeace501bc23";
	logging-data="452"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GDIDB5Qr34pEd16maPzuytJfyZNKGOtI="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/xcNIRCttwNOQ8WHDXHBpJGdnNs=
	sha1:mtfb9m/7xoKH+oubCPJv45zGS8M=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56407
Date: 2019-05-30T08:32:47+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2019-05-29 21:32, Simon Wright wrote:

>> But if it is to form part of a commercial distribution including
>> GPL'd code, OP's licence has to be compatible[1] with GPL and the
>> distribution itself has to be made under the GPL.
>
> Yes. If OP'd code uses GPLd code, then of course OP's code will be
> under GPL.

Sorry, but no. OP could place their code in the public domain, the fact
it uses a GPL'd library doesn't affect that. And the compiler's RTS (s
long as OP only uses ARM-defined features) doesn't affect it either.

> But if OP's code is not using GPLd code, then his/her code is not GPLd
> until he/she releases binaries created with CE.

The licence terms that OP places on their code cannot be changed except
by OP actually changing them. If OP' licence is incompatible with the
GPL than any attempt to make a distribution including OP's code and
GPL'd code will be contrary to the GPL.

This doesn't affect you, or I, or a business, using OP's
incompatibly-licensed code *so long as we don't make a distribution*.

=============

I think we may be arguing about language differences here rather than
the actual effect of the GPL! I'm sure I'm as capable as the next person
of holding wrong opinions about the effect of the GPL, but I do want to
get the wording right.

>> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>>