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,d0f6c37e3c1b712a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!statler.nntpserver.com!news.glorb.com!peer1.news.newnet.co.uk!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 <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:29:30 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2u05xp105.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
 <ugi7n3-9it.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <q8ac7ytzhl.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost>
 <i0ac7ym9ed.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1151965334.709372.227600@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
 <yk1wt2utos.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <3Ryqg.368$Rk2.140@trndny04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1152044970 12657 62.49.19.209 (4 Jul 2006 20:29:30
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:29:30 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TrKWE0zWYZH7yuBthlTZJtbqc80=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5492
Date: 2006-07-04T21:29:30+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> As you can see, the only way you are allowed to distribute this file
> is under the GPL, and the GPL does not contain the special
> exemption.  So you are not allowed to distribute this file to other
> people with the exemption in place. The people who distributed it to
> you must then have been the original copyright holders, who were
> able to choose any additional terms they wished.

It's Florist as a whole that is GPL'd. Part of Florist is 'this file'
which (as distributed) contained the exception. So the whole position
seems somewhat murky.

If Florist contains (as some of my code does) a file that is public
domain would it be forbidden to distribute it without _adding_ the
GPL?  I think not ..

None of us is a lawyer, of course, but I'm beginning to think that the
standard COPYING file is not enough, the licensing terms for a
mixed-license project ought to be spelt out in much more detail.