Corrected version Re: pragma License ?

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

All Languages have features that no one uses!  I think the primary group of 
programmers that use the Adacore or GNU Ada compiler kind of skip this 
pragma.

The reason it was inserted in the language is that Adacore GNAT is 
maintain under the GPL licence. And the OSI/FSF group wanted the 
"pragma Licence" to be included. So, NYU (GNAT creators) inserted this 
pragma back in one of the orginal ADA83 version and will be there in 
all future GPL versions. This way, the OSI/FSF can try to enforce the 
GPL policy, but since Ada specifications does not enforce this pragma, 
neither does Adacore.

Actually all languages that are maintain with the GPL have this type of 
feature.  But with no Language specification for this feature  then no 
compile will enforces the usages of this feature. So it kind of a dead 
issue unless you want the GNU to maintain or broadcast you progam 
package. If you look at GNU c/c++. fortran, or even the GNU 
version of java you will see a feature that emulates the 
Ada's "pragma License" in that language.  

Plus when the OSI/FSF finally updates its GPL to version 3, all of the 
sources that use GPL version 2 will have to be update.  But the one 
that uses this pragma or this type of feature in other languages are 
automatically update.  Updating source files for those packages that do 
not use this feature that is going to be one BIG JOB. Or should I say 
headache.

        And since, the linker does not verify the "License" of its 
files, this also denote that this is the main reason it was inserted. 

Plus, using this feature does look more professional.  Because the line: 

 pragma License ( GPL ) ;

is a lot easier to use than to insert the following set of lines 
(GNAT version) in each file:

-- GNAT is free software;  you can  redistribute it  and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the  GNU General Public License as published  by the Free Soft- --
-- ware  Foundation;  either version 2,  or (at your option) any later ver- --
-- sion.  GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
-- OUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the  implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License --
-- for  more details.  You should have  received  a copy of the GNU General --
-- Public License  distributed with GNAT;  see file COPYING.  If not, write --
-- to  the  Free Software Foundation,  51  Franklin  Street,  Fifth  Floor, --
-- Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.                                              --
--                                                                          --
-- As a special exception,  if other files  instantiate  generics from this --
-- unit, or you link  this unit with other files  to produce an executable, --
-- this  unit  does not  by itself cause  the resulting  executable  to  be --
-- covered  by the  GNU  General  Public  License.  This exception does not --
-- however invalidate  any other reasons why  the executable file  might be --
-- covered by the  GNU Public License.                                      --
--                                                                          --

But most progammers just insert the larger set of comments.  That way 
it spell out what others can do with the source. But these programmer 
forget that sometime in the future they may be requested to update this 
type of comment. Or have to deal with legal action from the OSI/FSF 
groups.

Note: I believe that Linux will create it own license once the GPL version
3 final is out.  Linus does not like the GPL version 3 drafts he has seen 
so far.


In <f4ukr6$meq$1@online.de>, Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:
>anon@anon.org (anon) writes:
>
>> Try this example ( 5 files ) :
>> Note: I like spaces so I know it will generate Style warning if compile
>>       with that option turn on.
>
>My question was not if the pragma works but wether it is actually
>*used*. This is a Adacore pragma and Adacore distributes their very
>same software under different licenses. So I would think it is
>reasonable to assume they use it to help avoid breach of license.
>
>-- 
>No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. 
>He simply follows the eleventh commandment.
>-- R.A. Heinlein