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

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>]

Marius Amado Alves writes:
> In the particular case above the GPL explicitly states that it does
> not regulate *execution* of the program, which I think is what in
> the spirit of the licensor of the academic package validates their
> request that it be *used* solely for academic purposes.  However the
> open source definition strictly forbids restrictions on use. A legal
> conundrum. As I said, one of the many. Another is that the GPL does
> not regulate source and object code separately. It regulates the
> transmission of the "Program", and *obliges* a transmission of the
> object code to be accompanied by the corresponding source code.

This is because of copyright law.  Copyright law regulates *copying*
and *distribution* of works only.  The author decides who can copy and
distribute their work, and on how they can do so, by granting
licenses.  If an author wants to restrict *usage*, then a *contract*
must be signed, and the author must receive some measurable sort of
compensation, lest the contract be null and void.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.