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: 103376,9386db0d319744cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!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: GNAT GPL vs non-GPL compatible open source license
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:29:09 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2u0fqd57u.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <sa4oe5z1d6g.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1128875353 16164 62.49.19.209 (9 Oct 2005 16:29:13
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:29:13 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6L2Lb8/dnA7+shIdCE0rGiIS7PA=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5528
Date: 2005-10-09T17:29:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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).