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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED.N5M2DXr2fJIsm61cKlUWUQ.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Commercial ada compilers vs gcc ada compilier Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 21:57:09 +0000 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <3ce6652b-c15c-4b27-b085-78aa782ea4d1@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: N5M2DXr2fJIsm61cKlUWUQ.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (darwin) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:gAZY5Hm8X4tslo/EqHbLA+5/d94= Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57501 Date: 2019-11-05T21:57:09+00:00 List-Id: Shark8 writes: > The legal-complications are (IMO) due to there being three 'versions' of GNAT: > 1: AdaCore's Community edition, which has a GPLed runtime. > 2: AdaCore's Pro edition, which does not. > 3: FSF's edition which has runtime- and generic-exception [IIRC] to the GPL. I don't know what the legal position is with licence terms written in each individual file vs licence terms specified elsewhere. I no longer have access to any Pro editions, but * the FSF sources contain the runtime exception * the CE sources are (aside from a few differences caused by them coming from different commits in AdaCore's source tree) identical to the FSF sources but having the runtime exception caluses edited out of the licence header. from which I deduce that there's really only one source tree, with different releases. So I'd expect that the individual source files of the Pro runtime contain the runtime exception. There are (were) additional guarantees from AdaCore about customers' abilty to use the code in proprietary systems. Now, back when AdaCore were removing the GMGPL from their CE-equivalent libraries, they hadn't got round to the wheeze of programattically stripping out the GMGPL terms from source files, and Robert Dewar claimed that a notice in the source tree to the effect that, whatever the individual files said in their headers, the library as a whole was released under the pure GPL. I always thought this was a dodgy argument, given that FSF's guidelines for how to release your code under the GPL say and said that you should put the licence terms in each source file (e.g. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoticeInSourceFile).