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: 103376,776a7f0c329d226e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!tiscali!transit1.news.tiscali.nl!dreader2.news.tiscali.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever
 seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)
References: <mailman.44.1105496732.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <41e503af_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>
 <i9qdnVewZbCHiXjcRVn-tA@comcast.com>
 <41e52252$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>
 <10ubu795m26ddf1@corp.supernews.com> <41e64436_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>
 <slrncuci2f.aec.hugues@nephilim.enst.fr>
 <1711413.SSJOl95tSF@linux1.krischik.com> <87wtuhi6qk.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <x7vllaxj8xp.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> <cs74f7$an5$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <mailman.50.1105703340.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:59:21 +0100
Message-ID: <87u0pjq4cm.fsf@insalien.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kJ1F5pjK8gYPTzLkC7vww0yNhpI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Tiscali bv
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jan 2005 18:59:21 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.134.241.103
X-Trace: 1105725561 dreader2.news.tiscali.nl 44087 83.134.241.103:39466
X-Complaints-To: abuse@tiscali.nl
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7777
Date: 2005-01-14T18:59:21+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.