Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

["Björn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil>]

M E Leypold wrote:
> Can I:
> 
>   - Have sources S1, S2, S3 with S1 and S2 being dirtributed to me
>     under the GMGPL whereas S3 is GPL.
> 
>   - I then compile S1, S2, S3 to X. 
> 
>   - Obviously X is covered by GPL: I must distribute S1, S2, S3 with X
>     as the GPL demands.
> 
>   - But cant' I state that S1, S2 are under GMGPL -- that is, anyone
>     receiving them is allowed to unbundle them from the source package
>     of X (which is actually made up from 3 different trees) and can
>     distribute them (S1, S2) as GMGPL sources or create other GMGPL,
>     GPL or even closed executables from them.
> 
> Question: Is there any contradiction in the license terms or is that
> permissible? 

That is permissible.

The result can be confusing, for example if S1 is a program, S2 is some 
library that the program needs, and S3 is Libgnat. I think most people 
are used to assuming that the machine code of a program will have the 
same license as the source code. In this case it won't, and that's going 
to confuse people, but no, there's nothing in the license terms that 
forbids this.

> Note that I thing, that the builder of the excutable X cannot strip
> the linking exceaption from the libs S1 and S2 since he/she has not
> changed the libs. He would have to refrain from using them if he is
> not allowed to link with S3.

I disagree here. I think you can take GMGPL code, strip the exception 
and redistribute it as pure GPL but otherwise unmodified. You shouldn't 
do it, because it would serve no purpose other than FUD, but I think 
it's allowed. I'm not entirely sure about that though.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu