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: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... References: <449660f0$0$11077$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> From: M E Leypold Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:32:55 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.218.241 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151148415 88.72.218.241 (24 Jun 2006 13:26:55 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4959 Date: 2006-06-24T13:32:55+02:00 List-Id: Michael Bode writes: > Jeffrey Creem 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 You're completely right in that respect. That is exactly why a number of people advocate the following: - Use of GPL for tools and applications (that protects the community from someone borgifying (embrace and extend) these _programs_ and putting out incompatible "value added" versions (which would result in a vendor lockin). - Use of LGPL, GMGPL or BSD license for libraries. The last point is often contested, but one might notice that history shows that environements (speak libraries) which absolutely preclude the development of closed source software for certain purposes (think about an NDA on methods and manufacturing processes your customer wants you to sign), have a problem to build a non-hobbyist community. Many of this projects/environments have changed the license to a more liberal one. Some examples: - KDE (Qt) - Ocaml - Minix :-) On the other side GPL has become a weapon of marketing in some hands: I.E. MySQL not only put the client runtime unter GPL after, I think, version 3) but (rumor has it) also has a most peculiar interpretation of the GPL, namely that using MySQL specific syntax in one of your (scripted) programs already constitutes linking. I leave it to the reader to judge how much of this applies to the recent license changes surrounding Gnat and the libraries (mostly the libraries, since there is FSF-Gnat), since I'm not done with my reasearch yet and also have other things to do. > 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. Regards -- Markus