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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable 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!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:49:02 +0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <41e503af_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> <41e52252$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> <10ubu795m26ddf1@corp.supernews.com> <41e64436_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> <1711413.SSJOl95tSF@linux1.krischik.com> <87wtuhi6qk.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1105703340 20036 212.85.156.195 (14 Jan 2005 11:49:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:49:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: open@softdevelcoop.org To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7764 Date: 2005-01-14T11:49:02+00:00 > 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)? This is only one of the many problems with no clear (legal) solution of software licensing with open source licenses. The one thing more complex than software is software licensing. Basically open source is in chaos. Sane solutions are being discussed at http://softdevelcoop.org 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.