Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes:

> Michael Bode wrote:
> > Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes:
> >
> >>This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it
> >>really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the
> >> GPL.
> > If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that
> > Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily
> > create a 'derived work' of Microsoft Windows(TM) by writing any
> > program that uses any Windows DLL. And you don't have to stick
> > Microsoft's EULA to it, you can even licence it under GPL.
> >

> The question of whether or not it is more or less free than a
> microsoft EULA is irrelevant because the "free" here is the FSF
> version of free which has almost nothing to do with what everyone
> seems to want it to mean.

Not quite. The FSF is offering also the LGPL (and they are using it
for Glibc and the Gcc runtime, BTW. Meditate about that).

Since it's not FSF offering the libraries in question, it's not the FSF
concept of "free" that is at issue here, but the concept of people
offering libraries under GPL.

There is no pointing to the FSF here. After all one (as a library
author) can freely decide between GPL, LGPL and GMGPL. Its their right
to offer libraries under GPL. OK. But they must also stand the
statement that (in a library) that implies less freedom and that it is
their doing not the FSF's. And if one goes further they must also
stand the question why they are doing that.

But the FSF, after all, has nothing todo with the GPL-releases of Gnat.

> Anyone that thinks that the intention of the GPL is anything other
> than that is totally missing the point of the FSF.

No. It would be missing the intentions of folks which release
libraries under GPL.

> Note this is specifically why the LGPL was changed from library GPL to
> lesser GPL because people were too often just assuming that all
> libraries should use the LGPL and thus there were not enough cases
> where people were forced to release their code under "free" terms.

"forced to release". I think I can rest my case here. 

Regards -- Markus