Re: FSF libgnat

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com>]

Björn Persson wrote:
> 
> In other words, you're saying that different parts of the same 
> executable file will be covered by different licenses. Now *that* is messy!

It would be if it were correct, but it is not.

> Let's look at the exception:
> 
> "As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this 
> unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, 
> this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be 
> covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not 
> however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be 
> covered by the GNU Public License."
> 
> The wording seems to assume that the GPL would either cover the whole 
> executable or none of it, but according to you it should be read as 
> "...does not cause the *entire* executable to be covered by the GPL – 
> just parts of it."

Either the executable falls under the GPL, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you 
don't have to distribute any source code. Since the GMGPL doesn't cause the 
executable to fall under the GPL, it follows that the use of GMGPL source does 
not require the distribution of source code.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I would never want to belong to any club that
would have someone like me for a member."
Annie Hall
41