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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f65d0,bd4d2fccdf730b16 X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: gnat-3.10 Date: 1997/06/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 253789872 Sender: minyard@wf-rch References: Organization: Wonderforce Research Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.gcc Date: 1997-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ronald Cole writes: > > dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > > We have a number of large customers on HPUX. They were using 3.09 when it > > was the current release, most of them have by now switched to 3.10 which is > > the current product release. As usual, this will be released publicly in > > the future. > > GNAT is based on GCC, right? What section of the GPL are you relying > on to justify making binary releases of modified GPL software to your > paying clients and refusing to make the source code available to the > public at the same time? Under Section 3 of the GPL, it seems clear > that once you distribute an object code work based on a GPL'd program, > you must release the source code concurrently. The GPL never states that you have to make a public release or you have to give anything to anybody. It states that if you give someone a binary release, you have to give them source (which ACT does, the source is available to customers). It also says that you cannot restrict what someone does with what you give them (as long as they comply with GPL), so ACT asks customers not to release the sources, but it really cannot require them to. The GPL is not an easy document to read and requires careful reading to understand. Don't make rash statements about GPL without carefully reading it. It states that: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) and ACT complies with a) since they supply code on the FTP site with the binary executables. What they do not seem to do, which disturbs me a little, is distribute the GCC base they use to build their stuff on their FTP site. Since the patches they supply don't apply perfectly, they are obviously using a patched GCC base and do not provide information about how to get it. But perhaps they are relying on b) above in the GPL for that specific part, which would be perfectly fine legally. I'd rather have it on the FTP site, though. > > And why hasn't the text of the GPL been included in your previous > source distributions? > Since it is a patch to GCC, it probably doesn't matter. It might be better to include it in the src/ada directory for the compiler sources just in case, though. The library sources are under a different license, so they don't apply. -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortel.ca UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com