Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3355 bytes --]

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> On 18 juin, 20:32, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
> <spam.jrcarter....@nospam.acm.org> wrote:
>> That answers your main question: you can create proprietary
>> programs using the MinGW compiler. The rest of the paragraph is
>> legal CYA so they can't be sued if you use a (non-MinGW) pure GPL
>> library and try to claim that your program is not GPL.
>
> What CYA ? (I'm not native english, and there are many common english
> acronyms I do not know)

It means "Cover Your Ass", which is an idiom for "make sure you cannot
be sued".

> Well, a very interesing stuff : I've pointed a big difference between
> the GNAT GPS compiler and the MinGW Ada compiler (wich is althought
> sourced from GNAT)
>
> Juste look at the package body for “Ada.Asynchronous_Task_Control” as
> an exemple (the file is name “a-astaco.adb”).

The differece you note is the difference between GPL and GMGPL. GMGPL
allows distributing applications linked with the compiler runtime
without also distributing the source.

Whether the runtime is actually GMGPL is not strictly controlled by
this paragraph in the source code; it is actually controlled by the
license covering the method by which you got the compiler.

You need to talk to a lawyer.

>>-- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted --
>>-- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception,   --
>>-- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>--

I haven't seen this before, but it is apparently the GNAT
modification, adapted to GPL 3.

> ( source is http://mirrors.xservers.ro/gentoo-portage/licenses/gcc-runtime-library-exception-3.1
> )
>
> 1. Grant of Additional Permission.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by
>> combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such
>> propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that
>> all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You
>> may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice,
>> consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
>>
>> [...]
>
> I suppose “ consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
> ” talks about other modules (i.e. other ones which does not make
> reference this notice).

Right.

> Now, a question about “ Eligible Compilation Processes ” : is a
> compilation processe Eligible if it links to a module which make
> reference to this satement ?

Yes, but you need to talk to a lawyer.

> If it is, both the first copyright notice found with the older version
> of MinGW and the newer one will allow to compile commercial
> application written in Ada.

Please don't use the word "commercial" in this sense; it just confuses
things. I know the GNAT Libre website uses it, but that is a sales
tool, not a license discussion. In license terms, "commercial" is
irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you are required to
distribute the source, and what license the distributed binary is
covered by.

That may ultimately determine whether you can make a profit according
to your particular business model, but the license itself is _not_
about making money.

-- 
-- Stephe

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 193 bytes --]