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!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GMGPL for Ada('s generics) but not for C++('s templates)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:01:23 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyr2nilni4.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <3c1188bc-cfc4-4d39-88e1-1deca0eb9793@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="9d945e68900406f7ba1cfe166169859d";
	logging-data="27017"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1N/f10z0Ukf2KBS5wwwKd+LpCvli1Eig="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZLnfWXMHlfdGjhmVUxOkKzLSm5o=
	sha1:YrDHYXBCRiI1PZK4k9X45a1AjpE=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51482
Date: 2018-04-14T00:01:23+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:

> Please pardon me if this has been discussed ad infinitum before.  (I
> would appreciate reading those prior discussions if anyone can find
> them easier than my fruitless searches on this specific narrow topic.)
> But one aspect of the GMGPL being peculiar to Ada has always mystified
> me.
>
> If FSF Ada in the GCC needs GMGPL due to Ada's generics, then why
> doesn't FSF C++ in the GCC need a GMGPL for C++'s templates?  It would
> seem what is sauce for cooking the goose would be the same sauce for
> cooking the gander.
>
> (By “needs” here, I am of course referring to the licensing needs of a
> nonGPLed app that merely happens to be written in Ada or in C++ and
> compiled by a compiler in the GCC.  Of course, GPLed apps would have
> no such “need”, other than perhaps for the app to choose GPLv2 instead
> of the GCC's GPLv3.)

You're rather out of date here.

FSF runtimes are nowadays (I suspect since GPLv3) licensed under the GCC
Runtime Library exception: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.