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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,2c7b0b777188b7c4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:54:35 +0100 Organization: Pushface Message-ID: References: <1128499462.850353.146890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87ek6zom2h.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1128664475 21665 62.49.19.209 (7 Oct 2005 05:54:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 05:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Cancel-Lock: sha1:yUleLZKiA0Fhi03TDnqs4iKiQTc= User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5482 Date: 2005-10-07T06:54:35+01:00 List-Id: "Jeffrey R. Carter" writes: > Simon Wright wrote: > >> I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable >> affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you >> would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was >> and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds >> rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a >> different compiler; where's the problem? > > The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way > falls under the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any > program that uses the run-time library is GPL. No, it is not GPL, it must be released under the terms of the GPL. I suppose there might be an argument that a person who distributes a binary that mixes GPL code and the Booch Components (which are GMGPL) would have to make available the BC sources under GPL terms, but the recipient could always come back to me and ask for a fresh copy under GMGPL. Or indeed any other terms (they would fail, probably, because it's not just my copyright in there, the other authors would have to agree too). I just think this is all FUD. >From the Libre site -- Q I would like to release my software under the XYZ license, which is a Free Software license according to the FSF, but is incompatible with the GPL. What should I do? A The GNAT GPL Edition doesn't limit in any way the license you use on your sources. If you are distributing sources only, no issue with respect to the license of GNAT GPL Edition arises. You or anyone who wants to build a binary can do so freely from these sources, using either the GNAT GPL compiler or any other suitable Ada compiler. If you want to *distribute* a binary of your program compiled with the compiler in the GNAT GPL Edition then *today* the binary must be licensed under the GPL. Note that you can still license a copy of your sources under the XYZ Free Software license of your choosing. It is AdaCore's intention to work with the FSF to modify the licensing of the GNAT GPL Edition to allow the use of other Free Software licenses for binaries produced with the compiler inside the GNAT GPL Edition. Meanwhile, you can distribute in source form only.