RE: GNAT and GCC 3.0

["Steven Deller" <deller@smsail.com>]

Ted,
Hmmm.  I read the relevant passages you quote and see nothing that prevents
*compiled binaries* from being restricted in their distribution.  Yes, the
sources have to be pointed to, but not the binaries.

What did I miss?

Regards,
Steve
"Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen."
Steven Deller        Smooth Sailing LLC
410 757 6924         deller@smsail.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
> [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Ted Dennison
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 11:18 AM
> To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> Subject: Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0
>
> In article <3BC196CF.ACEA8F64@brighton.ac.uk>, John English says...
> >
> >Does this apply to binaries? Certainly Perl, Python and Tcl
> are "open source"
> >in some form (Perl is Perl Artistic License, Tcl is (c)
> Regents of University
> >
> >Not being a lawyer, I don't know if the GPL would prevent
> such conditions
> >being imposed on a precompiled binary made from GPL source,
> or whether
> >the vendor is merely obliged to point you at the sources and
> say "here
> >you are, you can compile it yourself if you want to, but you
> can't give
> >away copies of *our* compiled binaries".
>
> The GPL does indeed prevent such restrictions. You don't
> really have to be a
> ...
>