Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> > "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> it does not require that this exemption must continue to be given
> >> upon redistribution.
> > Are you sure? I don't think so. The exemption is part of the
> > conditions under which the thingy is licensed to you. So the words
> > "this license" in the GPL apply to the exemption also.
> >
> >> In fact, a close reading of
> >> that heading would imply that you are not even permitted to
> >> redistribute with that exemption!
> > Could you try to give some arguments in favor of this rather strange
> > view?
> 
> Well, again, here's the part of the header of the file
> which deals with distribution:
> 
> ......................................................................
> FLORIST 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.
> 
> As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from  this
> unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an  executable,
> this  unit 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.
> ......................................................................
> 
> As you can see, the only way you are allowed to distribute this file
> is under the GPL, and the GPL does not contain the special exemption.
> So you are not allowed to distribute this file to other people with
> the exemption in place. The people who distributed it to you must then
> have been the original copyright holders, who were able to choose any
> additional terms they wished.
> 


> As you can also see, there is no mention of "this license". The only
> license that's mentioned is the (pure) GPL.

"This license" is the language in the GPL. So you don't think the
exemption is part of the license? 


 
> So it's pretty clear: the authors of Florist distributed the files to
> you, allowing you to generate executables from them not bound by the
> GPL solely because of that, but only permitting you to redistribute
> them under the GPL without that exemption. Had they wished otherwise,
> they would have inserted license terms that said that you must grant
> the same exemption to anyone to whom you redistribute.

I say: Nonsense. 

Regards -- Markus