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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Harry Bolger <bolgeh@highschool.us>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <m41n9m$h8$2@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <DA%7w.753721$Y4.288171@fx24.iad>
 <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <w118w.110576$5U6.95784@fx01.iad> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam>
 <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com>
 <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad>
 <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com>
 <mqw8w.739469$w82.82975@fx21.iad>
 <cd91630f-d78d-4eab-830c-f71005e93fc0@googlegroups.com>
 <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com>
 <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <1415776387.7960.41.camel@obry.net>
 <4b21e212-7744-433a-a939-a82ef63ce8cc@googlegroups.com>
 <1415791954.7960.59.camel@obry.net>
 <2c66b776-777b-4530-a1a3-21337cefab85@googlegroups.com>
 <m3vmlm$r0v$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ac854d1-36b7-4d06-b673-ad25cdb71736@googlegroups.com>
 <d8d2b081-e289-4147-aba9-74e7856b5a31@googlegroups.com>
 <m412l6$clu$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: /73E1exqNyif7fBAZXl+/w.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23215
Date: 2014-11-13T07:40:38+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-11-13, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
> David's already posted a statement which I was unaware of and which backs
> up my memory that in the very early days of gcc, RMS proposed that _any_
> output from the gcc compiler would also be covered by the GPL.
>
> IIRC, the backlash from that was so huge (by the standards of the time)
> that RMS made it formally clear this wasn't, and would not be, the case.

That's now. I suspect once world domination draws near they will pull that
trick out of their sleeve and it will be too late for the lemmings to do
anything about it.

Harry