Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:

> If some brain-dead user (say, for example, someone like me) just writes 
> and compiles some Ada with gnatmake and gets an execuatable (eg for 
> Windows), is he yet (as of 3.14p) pretty safe in figuring that the 
> executable falls under the exception? 

Yes, that is what the GMGPL is for. If you produce an executable with
GNAT, it is _not_ "contaminated" by the GPL.

> Is there any library code that doesn't follow the exception? 

The intent is that there is not. If you are really concerned, you
should actually check, and consult your lawyer. I'm not sure if being
a GNAT customer would help here, but it probably would. They could
help in assuring that the GMGPL applies to all runtime components.

> Will the answer to this change with the new GNAT versions that are
> more closely integrated with the rest of gcc?

The runtime library that comes with gcc (note that this is _not_ glibc
or newlib), is mostly in libgg2.c (I think). It has wording in its
license that sounds exactly like the GMGPL. So I think you are safe
there.

Remember; I don't speak for ACT or FSF, nor am I qualified to provide
legal advice.

-- 
-- Stephe