From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4a81:: with SMTP id h1mr21535624qvx.102.1593101746121; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7312:: with SMTP id e18mr26954213otk.182.1593101745883; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:15:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <76def2a5-667c-4009-b3b9-f0cf1c13a51bo@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.35; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.35 References: <4d9fa282-830d-42f7-a3bf-ba127cb2ad06o@googlegroups.com> <8332f305-299f-45d7-9f9d-2cad924b24d8o@googlegroups.com> <9d941aca-2eb6-4f35-a346-c290c4666bdfo@googlegroups.com> <76def2a5-667c-4009-b3b9-f0cf1c13a51bo@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3b5b2360-684c-4149-8662-98b53319cf94o@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada on Apple's new procesors From: Optikos Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:15:46 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:59228 List-Id: On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:14:33 AM UTC-5, cha...@adacore.com wrote: > > > That's correct, there is no issue here. The GNAT LLVM compiler is a t= ool and is licensed under GPLv3, which is just fine and the proper license = for a tool. The runtime which is linked with your executable comes from the= gcc.gnu.org repository and contains the GCC RunTime exception license. > > >=20 > >=20 > > Can you confirm that using FSF GNAT with GNAT-LLVM (GPLv3) does or does > > not enable the IR clause in the GPLv3? >=20 > It does not and in any case, invoking this clause is a red herring since = as explained in the license, the concern and what's not allowed is using an= intermediate representation and feed it to a proprietary (non-GPL-compatib= le) > software to e.g. optimize it or further process it. > LLVM is a GPL-compatible Software, so this is irrelevant. >=20 > Arno Arno, are you aware that garden-variety unadorned LLVM straight from llvm.o= rg seems to be cleary =E2=80=A2not=E2=80=A2 on-topic for OP's Apple-centric= question along this entire thread? Submitting LLVM IR bitcode to the App = Store for publication/distribution permits Apple to perform any proprietary= closed-source manipulation of that bitcode IR that Apple desires. Unless = LLVM bitcode IR is recategorized in all legal jurisdictions worldwide as me= re assembly language (which might be the valid & proper case or might be on= thin ice, perhaps varying by legal-system jurisdiction, or worse by each j= udge), this later closed-source processing of the app by Apple for nonjailb= roken ARM-based Macs and iDevices to distribute via the App Store seems to = violate terms of at least the RLE if not GPLv3 too. Clearly, compiling with GNAT-LLVM & linking the runtime to an app's executa= ble via garden-variety unadorned LLVM straight from llvm.org for distributi= on to jailbroken ARM-based iDevices and Macs would conform to your analysis= , but Jerry in OP is likely not referring to that niche subset of Apple-wor= ld, so perhaps it is your analysis instead that is the red herring.