* ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
@ 2005-03-29 18:25 Andreas Almroth
2005-03-30 0:49 ` Jeff C
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Almroth @ 2005-03-29 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi all,
For those of you interested, I have updated the Ada95 bindings to;
* GPGME 1.0.2 (GnuPG Made Easy C API)
* libgpg-error 1.0 (common error message library for GnuPG components)
A few of the test programs have been ported to Ada95 to verify that the
bindings works, or at least partly. Change the makefile to correspond to
your environment.
The bindings are tested with GCC 3.4.3 on Solaris, but it should be
possible to compile on other platforms.
You will, obviously, need to install GnuPG 1.2.2+, libgpg-error 1.0 and
gpgme 1.0.2 first.
The bindings can be found at;
AdaGPGME - http://www.almroth.com/gpgme/index.html
libgpg-error - http://www.almroth.com/libgpgerror.html
Any suggestions, comments and bugs are welcome and should be sent to
andreas at almroth dot com.
For more information on GPGME and libgpg-error, please visit;
http://www.gnupg.org/
/A
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-29 18:25 ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error Andreas Almroth
@ 2005-03-30 0:49 ` Jeff C
2005-03-30 5:56 ` GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: " Tapio Kelloniemi
2005-03-30 7:13 ` Andreas Almroth
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff C @ 2005-03-30 0:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
Andreas Almroth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For those of you interested, I have updated the Ada95 bindings to;
>
> * GPGME 1.0.2 (GnuPG Made Easy C API)
> * libgpg-error 1.0 (common error message library for GnuPG components)
>
> A few of the test programs have been ported to Ada95 to verify that the
> bindings works, or at least partly. Change the makefile to correspond to
> your environment.
>
> The bindings are tested with GCC 3.4.3 on Solaris, but it should be
> possible to compile on other platforms.
>
> You will, obviously, need to install GnuPG 1.2.2+, libgpg-error 1.0 and
> gpgme 1.0.2 first.
>
> The bindings can be found at;
> AdaGPGME - http://www.almroth.com/gpgme/index.html
> libgpg-error - http://www.almroth.com/libgpgerror.html
>
> Any suggestions, comments and bugs are welcome and should be sent to
> andreas at almroth dot com.
>
> For more information on GPGME and libgpg-error, please visit;
> http://www.gnupg.org/
>
> /A
Nice!
One note..While I am a big fan of the GMGPL approach, it is not really
clear that it is entirely helpful in this case since GNUPG itself
appears to be GPL without exception...Not suggesting you need to change
the license binding but people using it (as always) need to understand
all of the license issues that are involved.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-30 0:49 ` Jeff C
@ 2005-03-30 5:56 ` Tapio Kelloniemi
2005-03-30 10:00 ` Pascal Obry
2005-03-30 12:19 ` Jeff C
2005-03-30 7:13 ` Andreas Almroth
1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tapio Kelloniemi @ 2005-03-30 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jeff C <jcreem@yahoo.com> wrote:
>One note..While I am a big fan of the GMGPL approach, it is not really
>clear that it is entirely helpful in this case since GNUPG itself
>appears to be GPL without exception...
Why do all Ada softwrae use "GMGPL" instead of Lesser General Public
License? I'm not a lawyer and probably reading the both texts would not make
me wiser at all.
--
Tapio
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-30 0:49 ` Jeff C
2005-03-30 5:56 ` GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: " Tapio Kelloniemi
@ 2005-03-30 7:13 ` Andreas Almroth
2005-03-30 12:12 ` Marin David Condic
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Almroth @ 2005-03-30 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jeff C wrote:
> Andreas Almroth wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> For those of you interested, I have updated the Ada95 bindings to;
>>
>> * GPGME 1.0.2 (GnuPG Made Easy C API)
>> * libgpg-error 1.0 (common error message library for GnuPG components)
>>
<snip>
>
> Nice!
>
> One note..While I am a big fan of the GMGPL approach, it is not really
> clear that it is entirely helpful in this case since GNUPG itself
> appears to be GPL without exception...Not suggesting you need to change
> the license binding but people using it (as always) need to understand
> all of the license issues that are involved.
>
Thanks!
Regarding the license, yes, it may not be entirely clear, I agree fully.
GnuPG is GPL only, GPGME is LGPL as its design is not limited to GnuPG,
and in the future may include other backends that may use other
licenses. I believe that could have been a reason why they choose LGPL.
I use GMGPL for most of my work that I publish. I like the GMGPL, it is
an approved license, and is based on GPL with the exception that any
code instantiating generics or using parts does not necessarily make the
final product GPL/GMGPL. However copyrights are still in place.
GMGPL differs from LGPL, but to my understanding, not so much in reality.
In this specific scenario, it is hard to say where to draw the line, as
GPGME, AFAIK, does not link to GnuPG, but merely calls the executable
with the necessary arguments. AdaGPGME is then linking to GPGME and any
resulting products would be based on LGPL, which means they can have
other (even non-free) licenses. The GMGPL would not be in the way really.
Well, I'm not an legal eagle, but I don't see that GMGPL in any way is
limiting/infringing LGPL.
Perhaps I should add a note to the README file...
/A
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-30 5:56 ` GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: " Tapio Kelloniemi
@ 2005-03-30 10:00 ` Pascal Obry
2005-03-30 12:19 ` Jeff C
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Pascal Obry @ 2005-03-30 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tapio Kelloniemi <spam17@thack.org> writes:
> Why do all Ada softwrae use "GMGPL" instead of Lesser General Public
> License?
That's the license used by GNAT itself, certainly the most respected piece
of Ada code around :)
Pascal.
--
--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--| http://www.obry.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-30 7:13 ` Andreas Almroth
@ 2005-03-30 12:12 ` Marin David Condic
2005-03-30 15:29 ` Simon Wright
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic @ 2005-03-30 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
I think the LGPL does not adequately cover generics. For a long time,
Ada has been rather unique in having generics and so licenses aimed at
things like C never really thought to cover them. Clearly, other
languages are catching up, so the GMGPL may be more useful.
A generic is not really a callable subroutine. Its sort of vaguely
similar to a macro expansion, but not quite the same thing. So if the
LGPL says you can call a subroutine and that doesn't make your code
GPL'ed, does that mean that instantiating a generic doesn't GPL your
code? If its ambiguous at all, you're better off having a license that
explicitly spells it out.
MDC
Andreas Almroth wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not an legal eagle, but I don't see that GMGPL in any way is
> limiting/infringing LGPL.
>
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm
Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g
c n i c . r
"'Shut up,' he explained."
-- Ring Lardner
======================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-30 5:56 ` GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: " Tapio Kelloniemi
2005-03-30 10:00 ` Pascal Obry
@ 2005-03-30 12:19 ` Jeff C
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jeff C @ 2005-03-30 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tapio Kelloniemi wrote:
> Jeff C <jcreem@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>One note..While I am a big fan of the GMGPL approach, it is not really
>>clear that it is entirely helpful in this case since GNUPG itself
>>appears to be GPL without exception...
>
>
> Why do all Ada softwrae use "GMGPL" instead of Lesser General Public
> License? I'm not a lawyer and probably reading the both texts would not make
> me wiser at all.
>
First insert the old I am not a lawyer thing....but here is my
understanding.
The problem (or at least one major problem) is that the LGPL is not
really compatible with generic/template based programming languages.
Section 6 of the LGPL has clauses that require the things that use the
LGPL library to either be licensed under GPL like terms OR you have to
distribute the work so that the end user can apply bug fixes to the LGPL
portion and continue to run. You can do this with plain old C (ignoring
the trivial stuff like Macros and constants) by doing dynamic linking to
the library. With C++ Templates and Ada generics you can not usually get
away with a dynamic link to portions of the library code.
So, GMGPL essentially is another way at getting to an end state similar
to what people *THink* the LGPL says.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-30 12:12 ` Marin David Condic
@ 2005-03-30 15:29 ` Simon Wright
2005-03-31 12:33 ` Marin David Condic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Simon Wright @ 2005-03-30 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:
> I think the LGPL does not adequately cover generics. For a long time,
> Ada has been rather unique in having generics and so licenses aimed at
> things like C never really thought to cover them. Clearly, other
> languages are catching up, so the GMGPL may be more useful.
>
> A generic is not really a callable subroutine. Its sort of vaguely
> similar to a macro expansion, but not quite the same thing. So if the
> LGPL says you can call a subroutine and that doesn't make your code
> GPL'ed, does that mean that instantiating a generic doesn't GPL your
> code? If its ambiguous at all, you're better off having a license that
> explicitly spells it out.
For example, see the header comment on bison.simple:
/* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a
Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction.
This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation
in version 1.24 of Bison. */
I wrote the following for XSL stylesheets:
As a special exception, when portions of this file are copied by
a stylesheet processor into an output file, this file does not by
itself cause the resulting file to be covered by the GNU General
Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any
other reasons why the output file might be covered by the GNU
Public License.
which was intended as 'GMGPL for stylesheets'. I suspect I was going a
bit further than really necessary ...
--
Simon Wright 100% Ada, no bugs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error
2005-03-30 15:29 ` Simon Wright
@ 2005-03-31 12:33 ` Marin David Condic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic @ 2005-03-31 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
Its important to cover these things because many people/companies have
concerns about license infection. They want to know that if they are
using your tools/utilities that this does not force upon them whatever
license you personally wanted to use. Being explicit about where your
software/rights ends and the other guy's begins is a good thing.
MDC
Simon Wright wrote:
>
>
> For example, see the header comment on bison.simple:
>
> /* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a
> Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction.
> This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation
> in version 1.24 of Bison. */
>
> I wrote the following for XSL stylesheets:
>
> As a special exception, when portions of this file are copied by
> a stylesheet processor into an output file, this file does not by
> itself cause the resulting file to be covered by the GNU General
> Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any
> other reasons why the output file might be covered by the GNU
> Public License.
>
> which was intended as 'GMGPL for stylesheets'. I suspect I was going a
> bit further than really necessary ...
>
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm
Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g
c n i c . r
"'Shut up,' he explained."
-- Ring Lardner
======================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-03-31 12:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-03-29 18:25 ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error Andreas Almroth
2005-03-30 0:49 ` Jeff C
2005-03-30 5:56 ` GMGPL vs. LGPL, was: " Tapio Kelloniemi
2005-03-30 10:00 ` Pascal Obry
2005-03-30 12:19 ` Jeff C
2005-03-30 7:13 ` Andreas Almroth
2005-03-30 12:12 ` Marin David Condic
2005-03-30 15:29 ` Simon Wright
2005-03-31 12:33 ` Marin David Condic
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox