Re: GNAT GPL vs non-GPL compatible open source license

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes:

> An argument against GNAT GPL was that you could not distribute
> software that linked against non-GPL compatible licenses, such as
> openssl.
>
> Lets say I have an Ada package ABC. It uses openssl extensively. I
> use the GPL license for ABC, but add a clause expressly allowing it
> to be linked against openssl.
>
> Is this a problem? On one hand ABC and openssl should be OK, but on
> the other hand openssl and the GNAT runtime library are both linked
> in the one executable. Is this really a problem? Openssl is not
> derived from the GNAT run time library, it doesn't even use the GNAT
> run time library.

It seems clear enough that at the moment you (and your users) could
not distribute such a binary. Note, the Debian guys seem to think
there's an LGPL replacement for openssl (GNU TLS).

> As much as I like the GPL, I dislike the fact if it affects
> unrelated software that just happens to be used by the one package.

I don't see where it's affecting openssl. It's just affecting the use
you want to make of openssl + GNAT GPL.

I think you (and your users) have to distribute in source form;
problem solved! (I guess there should be a smiley in there somewhere).