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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ec90d7920bdc8e8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!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: Ada and licensing Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:12:54 +0100 Organization: Pushface Message-ID: References: <1190014387.975202.55530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> <1190032323.899346.97800@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1190405577 1838 62.49.19.209 (21 Sep 2007 20:12:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lovCegnQW09tOPyFwC8kRmhh/JA= User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (darwin) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2070 Date: 2007-09-21T21:12:54+01:00 List-Id: Markus E L writes: > Simon Wright wrote: > >> Jacob Sparre Andersen writes: >> >>> Simon Wright wrote: >>>> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: >>> >>>>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library >>>>> to your customers. Still no RTL involved. >>>> >>>> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable. >>> >>> Not quite. >>> >>>> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can >>>> see a .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built >>>> from it. >>> >>> No. The GPL is on the run-time library. And .o files are not >>> linked, and thus not infected with the license of the run-time >>> library. >> >> No. If that were the case, the LGPL could apply. > > That's the old "using an interface or including a header already > makes it a derived work" hypothesis. I'm not sure how well that > would hold up under pressure and from a software engineering point > it's certainly nonsense (even if copyright law would provide a lever > of enforcing this point of view). I've always held that people > trying to push that agenda should be punished for crimes against > proper software engineering. (Mind you, nothing against you > personally, I'm refering e.g. to those that want to make all Linux > kernel modules GPL because those -- nolens volens need to read the > kernel header files during compilation). I think that if your code had pragma Restrictions (No_Generic_Instantiations); (is there such a beast?) *and* if your compiler vendor released a sharable image of the rtl under the LGPL you could probably get by. So far as I know libgnat.so and friends aren't released under the LGPL. But it was always Robert Dewar's view that generic instantiation effectively imports the library's source into your binary -- hence the GMGPL. And hence my suggestion that a .o could inherit (GM)GPL-ness from the library.