Re: GNAT GPL 2005: Too clever by half?

[Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>]

>>>>> "Marc" == Marc A Criley <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:

    Marc> If you're hard over to free software, GPL GNAT 2005 is just
    Marc> fine and dandy, since it'll force people to make their
    Marc> software free (libre), which is the goal of the FSF.

The problem, as Samuel Tardieu has already mentioned, is that not all
"free software" uses the GPL.

There are heaps of other licenses out there, from Apache license,
openssl license, BSD license, libstdc++ license, LGPL, just to mention
the first ones that come to the top of my head.

It is simply not possible to convert all of these projects to use the
GPL (or GPL compatible[1]) licenses, no matter how much Richard
Stallman would like this.

Note:

[1] For example, the python license is GPL compatible; Does this mean
a GPL application compiled with GNAT GPL 2005 could also depend on
python?

Or another (dodgy) example: suppose I wanted to enhance python by
adding new Ada code to it. Would I be allowed to compile the Ada parts
with GNAT GPL 2005?

Trying to think these examples through is making me dizzy...
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>