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: 103376,34191e2c05ab90f1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada & gui
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:30:28 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m23bpwavff.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <dccslh$2n5f$1@news2.ipartners.pl>
 <1122635428.712528.291900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
 <dcd4os$2s9q$1@news2.ipartners.pl> <42EA23CC.5020304@mailinator.com>
 <dcd8q3$2utk$1@news2.ipartners.pl> <42EA2C1E.3070006@mailinator.com>
 <m27jf9blo5.fsf@grendel.local>
 <nospam-BFDCDE.21272029072005@news-rdr-03.ohiordc.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1122755434 13806 62.49.19.209 (30 Jul 2005 20:30:34
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:30:34 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sCOtxbquvFsyFU8LnJp4YuXb19A=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3861
Date: 2005-07-30T21:30:28+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

> If you modify a GMGPL library and distribute the modified code, you
> have to provide the modifications, as required by the GPL. Now you
> choose the license under which to redistribute your modified
> library. The GPL requires that you "not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
> herein." Doesn't that preclude your choosing a license that's more
> restrictive than GMGPL. If you redistribute under GMGPL, then your
> code that uses the library would be explicitly exempt from the
> linking provision, just as it was before you started.
>
> I can't help wondering if the GNAT modification was designed to
> achieve just this effect.

Well, that may be so. I guess on the other hand that a corporate legal
department faced with this might be happy with the use of an
unmodified GNAT RTL (where the position is clear) but unhappy with the
required use of a modified GNAT RTL (or other GMGPL library, of
course) where the position is less clear.