Re: ada & gui

["John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.com>]

In article <42eb52ec_2@news.arcor-ip.de>,
 Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:

> John B. Matthews wrote:
> > In article <m27jf9blo5.fsf@grendel.local>,
> >  Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote:
> 
> >>IANAL, any more than anyone else here, but my take on this is that if
> >>you use an unmodified GMGPL library there's no impact on your code. If
> >>however the GMGPL library has to be modified in order for your code to
> >>work it seems likely that you would have to treat the library as being
> >>GPL -- so your code would have to be released as (GM)GPL. Or not
> >>released, of course.
> > 
> > 
> > IANAL either, but I have a different take: 
> 
> Neither am I; there is another phrase, "this unit".
> When you modify this unit, you create a derivative work.
> What's the status of the exception which seems to apply to
> the original work?
> 
> The section on embedded fonts in the GPL FAQ seems to talk about
> similar exceptions and their relation to derived fonts.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException

Indeed, the font exception offers an explicit choice for redistributing 
the derivative work: "If you modify this font, you may extend this 
exception to your version of the font, but you are not obligated to do 
so." In contrast, the GNAT modification does not offer this choice. The 
GPL itself precludes distributing derived works under a more restrictive 
license. Wouldn't removing the GNAT modification make the license more 
restrictive?

-- 
John
jmatthews at wright dot edu
www dot wright dot edu/~john.matthews/