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: 103376,1060de63f71a1a06
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.46.193 with SMTP id x1mr3450631pbm.7.1317906160648;
        Thu, 06 Oct 2011 06:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 lh7ni12814pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: License of that GNAT patch ?
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:02:39 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2wrcixogg.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <op.v2vvymhxule2fv@index.ici>
	<de6e4001-ef36-4ad5-83d2-ae7239a9c327@z19g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
	<4e8cb7c8$0$6633$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
	<87pqibqjvm.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<4e8ce3fe$0$7625$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
	<83466c2c-7527-4f2a-9124-bf5cbbfe4c68@i33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<4e8d9e15$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="dFCm8HWntFqmDIilBLqEJQ";
	logging-data="25646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kdmGlucED/o8L6T15UpbsWJmr7VsWfdk="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5QOOMIkvrPiffMxOCYIqBgY29yk=
	sha1:twCDd8iAnhKLp+rRAlBYPpxx3jw=
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18328
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2011-10-06T14:02:39+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.