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!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:06:41 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam> <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com> <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad> <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ff529209d97605a4e00265a5af81ac3e"; logging-data="14727"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197O9ySBWBUNFbRkQN9lku4qbuavVBR7FA=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:m0KNzoZUbTIcZllr3mEXKI9KxPc= sha1:51k58rFqmuWeefBuug53OQ+B/DI= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23140 Date: 2014-11-12T08:06:41+00:00 List-Id: Hubert writes: > Ok, I was wondering about that for a while, hence my question about > the GPL situation with the libraries. I was under the impressino that > the thing that makes the resulting program GPL was the libraries and > not the compiler, but this explains now why any output from the GPL > compiler is GPL if the runtime that is essential to run the compiled > program is also GPL. GCC itself has always been GPL; WindRiver, for example, have always provided GCC as one of the compilers their customers could use to build proprietary applications. To quote from the GNU Licences FAQ[1], The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers libgcc, libstdc++, libfortran, libgomp, libdecnumber, and other libraries distributed with GCC. The exception is meant to allow people to distribute programs compiled with GCC under terms of their choice, even when parts of these libraries are included in the executable as part of the compilation process. and from the GCC Runtime Library Exception Rationale[2], [...] the FSF decided long ago to allow developers to use GCC's libraries to compile any program, regardless of its license. Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog. This is why the FSF GCC Ada runtime _does_ carry the Runtime Library Exception. The last sentence is, of course, borne out by this present row. > The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation in > the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was > thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a > new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out. For info, which explanation? I've certainly heard what I considered to be misleading statements on this from AdaCore, but that could well have been because they were trying to persuade management and I was only present as technical assistance. You could write a new set of libraries (probably working from the FSF compilers) but that would be a large task (mammoth if you started from scratch, and moreover a moving target). [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LibGCCException [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html