Re: ANN: Update to AdaGPGME and libgpg-error

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

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.