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: 103376,3ec90d7920bdc8e8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada and licensing References: <1190014387.975202.55530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> <1190032323.899346.97800@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> From: Markus E L Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:30:29 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZB4qmVFoo9+vNdwnLOrho2CP0fM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.237.108 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1190276737 88.72.237.108 (20 Sep 2007 10:25:37 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2059 Date: 2007-09-20T10:30:29+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright wrote: > Jacob Sparre Andersen 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