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: 103376,1060de63f71a1a06
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.46.193 with SMTP id x1mr2353613pbm.7.1317885213520;
        Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 lh7ni12647pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: License of that GNAT patch ?
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:13:32 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2hb3mzj6r.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <op.v2vvymhxule2fv@index.ici>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="dFCm8HWntFqmDIilBLqEJQ";
	logging-data="4296"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/k4Noewnv9cLMgprK1YZ2q6X4RlkNfSc="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bbBnB5oRUMhgR9yo6PgZYlAfjPA=
	sha1:lY4NBdpKN7TMKnT8au30+FkrHV8=
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18319
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2011-10-06T08:13:32+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Seems this patch must be applied in order to have GNAT to support
> Static_Predicate and Dynamic_Predicate. However, the patch contains no
> license information, and I would like to know how I should handle such
> a case and any future similar cases. The GNAT compiler I use is one
> with the GCC Runtime Exception, which I wish to preserve. Is a patch
> like this to be considered part of runtime or not ? It is part of the
> compiler from some point of view, but also supposed to drive
> generation of runtime code, so I feel dubious.

Section 5 of GPLv3[1] seems pretty clear to me! (but IANAL).

The GCC Runtime Library Exception applies to the runtime library, not to
compiler frontend internals, so I expect that the files concerned (which
you could check) don't have the exception anyway and are subject to the
full GPL.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html