Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available

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

>>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

    Ludovic> Well, I wouldn't think this is necessary; instead, you'd
    Ludovic> want to compile with GNAT GPL 2005 Edition but link
    Ludovic> against libgnat-3.4 or libgnat-4.0 (GMGPL).  I would
    Ludovic> think you can use -lgnat-x.y to achieve this, without the
    Ludovic> need to patch the compiler.

If you can do that, what is the problem? Doesn't this mean you are now
using the GMGPL run time library instead of the GPL run time library?
If you are using the GMGPL run time library, what license issues
exist?

Why is "Package GNAT GPL 2005 but make libgnat-4.0 the default" not an
option?


Also, the relevant part of the GPL, I believe is:

--- cut ---
    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.
--- cut ---

and

--- cut ---
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
--- cut ---

My interpretation (yes, I realize debian-legal may disagree) if a
program A uses library B, this does not make program A a derivative of
the library B. Also see the sentence "Thus, it is not the intent of
this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written
entirely by you;".

This is particularly the case here, because the program A source
wasn't created from the run-time library in any form, not even the
documentation (if any) for the library - instead the source uses a
public standard known as "Ada 95" or Ada "2005". Hence I don't see how
you can argue that A is a derivative of B.

(for another similar situation, see OpenAFS - OpenAFS was developed
independently of Linux, and as such has a non-GPL open source license,
but apparently some developers see this as non-free, because that
could be seen as incompatible with the GPL license Linux uses; Others
argue that openafs was developed independently, and as such cannot be
a derivative work of Linux, so the GPL requirements don't apply. Also
Linus' interpretation of the GPL in that it still allows closed kernel
modules is seen to be wrong by some developers. I admit I don't
understand all the issues involved here; it gets complicated...)
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>