Re: Ada and licensing

[Markus E L <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:
>
>> Simon Wright wrote:
>>> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
>>
>>>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library to
>>>> your customers. Still no RTL involved.
>>>
>>> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>>> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can see a
>>> .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built from it.
>>
>> No.  The GPL is on the run-time library.  And .o files are not linked,
>> and thus not infected with the license of the run-time library.
>
> No. If that were the case, the LGPL could apply.

That's the old "using an interface or including a header already makes
it a derived work" hypothesis. I'm not sure how well that would hold up
under pressure and from a software engineering point it's certainly
nonsense (even if copyright law would provide a lever of enforcing
this point of view). I've always held that people trying to push that
agenda should be punished for crimes against proper software
engineering. (Mind you, nothing against you personally, I'm refering
e.g. to those that want to make all Linux kernel modules GPL because
those -- nolens volens need to read the kernel header files during
compilation).

Regards -- Markus