Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

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

Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> writes:

> Your comment has made me thinking again about the licence issue. Does the
> GMGPL say anything about the licence that must be used for directly
> derived work? GPL or GMGPL?

Yes. Go read it!

Hmm. I couldn't find a direct reference online. Here's the license
part of a header of a file in SAL (which is GMGPL):

-- SAL is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
-- under terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
-- Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
-- later version. SAL is distributed in the hope that it will be
-- useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty
-- of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
-- General Public License for more details. You should have received a
-- copy of the GNU General Public License distributed with SAL; see
-- file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, 59
-- Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
--
-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from
-- SAL, or you link SAL object files with other files to produce
-- an executable, that 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 GPL is at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

-- 
-- Stephe