Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com>]

Martin Dowie wrote:

> Simon Wright wrote:
>> Then I have been under a misapprehension for a long time.
>> 
>> 0.  This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
>>     notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
>>     under the terms of this General Public License. [...]
>> 
>> 1.  You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
>>     source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
>>     conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
>>     appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
>>     intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
>>     absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
>>     Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
>> 
>> Unless you are claiming that said student is not a recipient? nor a
>> licensee?
> 
> Is the problem then that the ".exe" installation (which is what everyone
> _really_ wants) is not GPL but only the _source_code_ of the thing being
> installed that must be made available (via the GPL)?

I would be happy with i.E. an up to date copy of ASIS - If I am not mistaken
it should contain gnat pretty ;-).

EXE would be perfect but a unified release of all sources would be the next
best thing!

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com