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 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada to Ada Translator ? Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 22:42:02 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <100ad407-090e-4316-9746-a4469568b53e@googlegroups.com> <477352cf-80d0-458c-b64a-4605557fef8f@googlegroups.com> <36cf3be3-0ab0-48d4-bffa-e49c624e73ff@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1f918a0f3e6fafea4b90e16c0c51c197"; logging-data="27417"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Sd3x7NB/K0VyqDeDvKQvj7drgOowgGnM=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:6arnzGrzzWmr7EU9SfG5QocskAw= sha1:eRmn7ezhTUVgfCl9w2Rtu0HRFKU= Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56341 Date: 2019-05-19T22:42:02+01:00 List-Id: Optikos writes: > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:08:33 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote: >> "G.B." writes: >> > It does not extend to derivative works which you seem to have in >> > mind when mentioning to fork. >> >> Agreed that this is a potentially contentious area: the Exception >> says that it 'applies to a given file (the "Runtime Library") that >> bears a notice placed by the copyright holder of the file stating >> that the file is governed by GPLv3 along with this Exception' - are >> you entitled to maintain the Exception in a derivative work? if you >> do, does it count? (you not being the sole copyright holder). I was thinking about whether I could modify a file to which the Exception applied and pass that file on to you retaining the Exception; since there are now two copyright holders involved. > If a legitimate copyright holder places the Runtime Library Exception > in a file, then anyone may create derivative works of that file with > the Runtime Library Exception still in effect as long as all the > restrictions regarding Target Code and Compilation Process being an > Eligible Compilation Process are obeyed Maybe, maybe not. Where does it say that in the licence(s)? > Whether the source code (e.g., incremental maintenance; drastic > departure) is the derivative work or whether the object code then > executable is the derivative work makes no difference to copyright > law; they are all derivative works under the GPL. If Simon's worry > applies to source-code derivative works, then it applies to > object-code & executable derivative works as well. Don't understand why you think this is news.