Re: C code to Ada

["chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>]

sk wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Very q&d at the end of the day and I was trying to get 
 > somewhere else.


q&d?


> Hopefully you will understand enough of what I was
> intending and produce a public package ?

Yes I think (or rather hope) so, thanks for the advice.


> Your OP concerning GMGPL ... my understanding of
> GPL would suggest that a binding to a GPL'ed "dlfcn.h"
> would require it also to be GPL if you released it
> publicly since the binding would be a derived work.

Is it GPL?  Fook!  No wait... <checks> it's LGPL'ed, so I can LGPL the 
binding.  I don't know for sure that I can then include the binding in 
my project and be ok with GMGPL'ing the rest of the code or not.  I am 
working on the premise that it is, if anyone knows different or knows 
someone who knows different, do tell.


> The GPL (and associates) can be tricky. 

Yeah, I don't really understand any of them all that well (I sometimes 
think that's the idea :) ).  This is what I've deduced and go by:-

GPL - all code and linked code must be Free Software

LGPL - the library is Free Software but code that links to it need not be

GMGPL - the code and any modifications shall remain Free Software, but 
linking with or using the code does not make client code Free Software 
(i.e. the client code can be proprietry or another non-free license).


 > Also
> remember R.Dewar's concerns about using GPL code
> without being sure that the original author has
> the right to release as GPL.

Who's R. Dewar again?  It's been so long ;)

Anyway, I was not aware of Dr Dewars concerns but I should have checked 
the libs - I took it for granted they'd be LGPL.  This is my first 
venture into the LGPL and GPL world, so I'm a bit confused about 
licensing and stuff (I usually stick to GMGPL'ed software which I prefer 
purely because I sort of understand the license).



Chris
-- 
for personal replies change spamoff to chris