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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,32d4b7099c3e0137 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-20 16:54:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!diablo.theplanet.net!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!peernews!peer.cwci.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep4-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "chris.danx" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: C code to Ada References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:56:35 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.4.69.150 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: newsfep4-win.server.ntli.net 1043110495 80.4.69.150 (Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:54:55 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:54:55 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33260 Date: 2003-01-21T00:56:35+00:00 List-Id: 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... 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