From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost> <1151965334.709372.227600@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <3Ryqg.368$Rk2.140@trndny04> From: M E Leypold Date: 05 Jul 2006 00:20:34 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.240.102 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1152051235 88.72.240.102 (5 Jul 2006 00:13:55 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5521 Date: 2006-07-05T00:20:34+02:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > "Hyman Rosen" 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