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: 103376,3e26dfa741e64e5f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available References: <432919be$0$10539$4d4eb98e@read.news.fr.uu.net> <1126773856.876636.265130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1126779323.823609.76240@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Brian May Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:58:08 +1000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:bNqa188x2qUvNzvkCLadMXjPw8k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au X-Trace: news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com 1126825042 202.173.153.89 (16 Sep 2005 08:57:22 +1000) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pipenetworks.com X-Abuse-Info: Please forward all headers to enable your complaint to be properly processed. Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.xtra.co.nz!news-south.connect.com.au!duster.adelaide.on.net!news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4767 Date: 2005-09-16T08:58:08+10:00 List-Id: >>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta 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