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,d0f6c37e3c1b712a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:11:40 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:06:01 -0400
From: Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?
References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
 <ugi7n3-9it.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
  <1151413996.881418.65260@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
  <2418185.2jO2KLhFBO@linux1.krischik.com>
  <1151431127.2179.20.camel@localhost>
  <1151479699.777290.36890@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <umzbvx2zs.fsf@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <umzbvx2zs.fsf@nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <oevdn3-0bh.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171
X-Trace: 
 sv3-zkzms4cmk9Ju4lcfZ/u13Cv3gwc8/m0ZpcPo3fvxVwLBksYxeG/1v1RcnISWhqGBG2DbFK0rRBuR1hW!ZOCOhZm8kQ+69n6EsP34zhogG/qhV5loSWoR/bJiSDw+KjrFSiiXywVdxZr23T/+k0aTDpeS3b5S!H7I=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5318
Date: 2006-06-29T18:06:01-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake wrote:

>>
>>Right: My work has to become GPL as well.
> 
> 
> If you distribute binaries compiled with the GNAT GPL compiler, that
> is true.
> 

To be clear (and I am not implying that Stephen does not know this) the 
work as distributed as part of that binary needs to be GPL as well but 
still nothing prevents that source code from being made available under 
other terms as well.

I.e. the following is perfectly fine

Distributed as GPL		Distributed as GMGPL
Library A			Library A
Compiled with GNAT GPL		Compiled with Aonix(for example)
into application XYZZY		into application EB90

When you distribute application XYZZY, you must do so in accordance with 
the terms of the GPL (meaning releasing Library A under the GPL).

But, nothing prevents you from also using Library A in application EB90 
and distributing application EB90 under a proprietary license.

This is why I think it is a little silly (even given my other concerns 
about the CVS "misleading?" headers) for anyone distributing GMGPL to 
change the license headers on their own files simply because they want 
it to "work" with the GNAT GPL edition.