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: 103376,34191e2c05ab90f1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!atl-c03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!atl-c08.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc01.usenetserver.com!ALLTEL.NET-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:32:56 -0500 From: "Marc A. Criley" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada & gui References: <1122635428.712528.291900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <42EA23CC.5020304@mailinator.com> <42EA2C1E.3070006@mailinator.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <399ee$42ee2479$4995067$26777@ALLTEL.NET> X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com Organization: UseNetServer.com X-Trace: 399ee42ee2479a13cf5c226777 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3875 Date: 2005-08-01T08:32:56-05:00 List-Id: John B. Matthews wrote: > IANAL either, but I have a different take: > > The phrase "your code" may be ambiguous. There's "your code" modifying > the library, which is clearly covered by the GPL. I'm not so sure about > "your code" that uses the library. > > If you modify a GMGPL library and distribute the modified code, you have > to provide the modifications, as required by the GPL. Now you choose the > license under which to redistribute your modified library. The GPL > requires that you "not impose any further restrictions on the > recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Doesn't that > preclude your choosing a license that's more restrictive than GMGPL. If > you redistribute under GMGPL, then your code that uses the library would > be explicitly exempt from the linking provision, just as it was before > you started. > > I can't help wondering if the GNAT modification was designed to achieve > just this effect. It helps to look at the effect AdaCore was trying to achieve with the GMGPL. AdaCore provides GNAT and sells support to major aerospace and defense contractors (among others). LockMart, Boeing, Raytheon, etc. are hardly likely to use any tool that would even hint of anything requiring open-source-like release of the software they develop. (This was my biggest "educational issue" when trying to get GNAT considered for use on the project I worked on at Lockheed Martin in the late 90s. The first of many myths I had to overcome was that just compiling the code with GNAT would require it to be open sourced -- I did prevail, by the way :-) So, these companies will use these tools if they can be convinced that they can legally keep their own code proprietary, and only have to make available any modifications to the open source software (compiler, tools, utilities, etc.) that was provided to them by the vendor, in this case AdaCore. That they can live with, and that is what the GMGPL is designed to permit. -- Marc A. Criley -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out