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!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!193.60.199.26.MISMATCH!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!feed2.jnfs.ja.net!feed1.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!xara.net!gxn.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.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: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:27:40 +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 1128637661 17814 62.49.19.209 (6 Oct 2005 22:27:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:27:41 +0000 (UTC) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lGpRp8UWP/yoyNCmzWX0ujTNJFU= User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5468 Date: 2005-10-06T23:27:40+01:00 List-Id: "Jeffrey R. Carter" writes: > But if I create an application using my GMGPL code and the GNAT GPL > compiler, my program (and all of its source code) must become GPL, and > I am not allowed to be "super-unselfish". Thus, I find the GNAT GPL > compiler unsuitable for my purposes. I consider it inappropriate for > any compiler to take such choices from me, and for any OS to supply > such a compiler. 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 hasn't been tested, has it, but it does say (in Section 2) "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."