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 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost> From: M E Leypold Date: 30 Jun 2006 10:52:53 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.230.215 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151657189 88.72.230.215 (30 Jun 2006 10:46:29 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5369 Date: 2006-06-30T10:52:53+02:00 List-Id: Bj�rn Persson writes: > Preben Randhol wrote: > > I don't like it. I contributed to a GMGPL project not a pure GPL > > project. > > Anyway, what I will do for the future is to use any license other > > than > > GPL. Now, I guess I need to spend a bit time to find a license > > compatible with GPL but without the viral part. I guess the BSD license is > > one candidate. > > Well, if you want to stop people from taking your code and slapping > the GPL on it, then a BSD-style license is a bad choice. > > If I understand you right, you want a license that allows compiling > together with GPL code to form a GPL executable, but forbids changing > the license of the source code to GPL. I presently living under the impression that GMGPL is actually such a license. "This license" in the GPL text refers to the license as a whole, which includes the GMGPL linking exception when read in the context of GMGPL (note: It's called Gnat _modified_ Gnu public license -- the Gnat modified has license as designation, the result is another, slightly different license :-)). I doubt, that anyone can just strip the linking exception from a GMGPL licensed work, but of course some GPL parts/files could be introduced to make the executables GPL by force. This is IMHO what Gnat GPL does. That is OK (from a licensing point of view nas I, IANAL, see it). But removing the licensing exception from a derived file is not OK. IANAL. Someone will have to take that up with AdaCore to get clarification on that. Regards -- Markus