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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9ea66d3dcd0bfcf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-30 08:01:03 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <5viG6.1064$SZ5.86996@www.newsranger.com> Subject: Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released) Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:00:36 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:00:36 GMT Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7054 Date: 2001-04-30T15:00:36+00:00 List-Id: In article <5viG6.1064$SZ5.86996@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison says... > >In article , Vincent Marciante >says... >>We need a comment from RBKD regarding the rational for the special exception >>in GNAT's license. > >I was around before that exception existed. What happened was that someone piped >up saying that their lawyers wouldn't allow them to use Gnat for their project, >as they were of the opinion that linking GPL-ed packages into their program >would require them to make the whole program GPL-ed. Thus to prevent this >scenario, all the package sources that aren't just part of the compiler itself >had an exception put in to allow linking them into an executable without >invoking any provisions of the GPL. That way GNAT itself is GPL'ed, but Well, I got no less than 2 replies from Dr. Dewar on this one. I haven't seen one of his postings by proxy pop up here on this subject, so suffice it to say that he *strongly* disagrees with this version of events, at least as it pertains to the GNAT RTL. Note that I never metioned the RTL either, and it was not my intention to do so. I was only talking about the licenses on the packages that are distributed with the compiler for "with"ing by users (at least the ones that aren't taken straight from the LRM, which of course have an LRM license). --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com