From: Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Subject: GNAT GPL vs non-GPL compatible open source license
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:17:59 +1000
Date: 2005-10-09T15:17:59+10:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sa4oe5z1d6g.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au> (raw)
Hello,
An argument against GNAT GPL was that you could not distribute
software that linked against non-GPL compatible licenses, such as
openssl.
Lets say I have an Ada package ABC. It uses openssl extensively. I use
the GPL license for ABC, but add a clause expressly allowing it to be
linked against openssl.
Is this a problem? On one hand ABC and openssl should be OK, but on
the other hand openssl and the GNAT runtime library are both linked in
the one executable. Is this really a problem? Openssl is not derived
from the GNAT run time library, it doesn't even use the GNAT run time
library.
As much as I like the GPL, I dislike the fact if it affects unrelated
software that just happens to be used by the one package.
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
next reply other threads:[~2005-10-09 5:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-09 5:17 Brian May [this message]
2005-10-09 16:29 ` GNAT GPL vs non-GPL compatible open source license Simon Wright
2005-10-14 17:03 ` Maxim Reznik
2005-10-15 0:15 ` Brian May
2005-10-15 8:35 ` Ludovic Brenta
2005-10-15 9:18 ` Pascal Obry
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox