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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,c23d953faf0768ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-07 17:33:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.jgaa.com!news.hacking.dk!pnx.dk!munin.nbi.dk!not-for-mail From: Jacob Sparre Andersen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Questions about Ada Core Technologies Date: 08 Apr 2004 02:33:48 +0200 Organization: Munin Sender: sparre@sparre.crs4.it Message-ID: References: <87oeq4vkod.fsf@insalien.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.241.165.45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: munin.grove.home 1081384429 12462 80.241.165.45 (8 Apr 2004 00:33:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: sparre@munin.nbi.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:33:49 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6828 Date: 2004-04-08T02:33:48+02:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote: > So even if ACT was requesting that customers do not distribute > non-public releases, it would not be violating the GPL Ignoring the difference between "requesting" and "requiring", it _would_ be a violation of the GNU GPL, since the GNU GPL allows people to redistribute binaries (as long as they also redistribute the corresponding source code). But since FSF and ACT seem to be on friendly terms, I doubt that ACT is doing anything that isn't completely by the book, when it comes to GNU GPL. Jacob -- �And what about homo sapiens? Yes, we think that would be a very good idea ...� -- not Gandhi