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

[Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>]

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)?

Cheers

-- Martin