From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Subject: Re: License of that GNAT patch ?
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:02:39 +0100
Date: 2011-10-06T14:02:39+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2wrcixogg.fsf@pushface.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4e8d9e15$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net
Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:
> All of this hinges on whether or not the GCC Runtime Exception allows,
> without copyright assignment, linking privately *changed* runtimes
> into proprietary binary products and distributing closed source only.
> I don't think so, and be stunned if I'm wrong.
When GPLv3(5) says "You may convey a work based on the Program, or the
modifications to produce it from the Program" it's talking about (in
this case) the GCC compiler and the Ada RTS. (c) adds "This License will
therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms,
to the whole of the work, and all its parts".
So there's some sort of case that the section 7 additional terms aren't
removed by patching the RTS.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-06 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-05 15:00 License of that GNAT patch ? Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2011-10-05 15:37 ` Ludovic Brenta
2011-10-05 20:02 ` Georg Bauhaus
2011-10-05 20:11 ` Ludovic Brenta
2011-10-05 23:10 ` Georg Bauhaus
2011-10-05 23:51 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2011-10-06 7:40 ` Ludovic Brenta
2011-10-06 12:24 ` Georg Bauhaus
2011-10-06 13:02 ` Simon Wright [this message]
2011-10-06 7:13 ` Simon Wright
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox