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!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmedia!news-server.columbus.rr.com!tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "John B. Matthews" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada & gui References: <1122635428.712528.291900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <42EA23CC.5020304@mailinator.com> <42EA2C1E.3070006@mailinator.com> <42eb52ec_2@news.arcor-ip.de> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:27:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.31.62.213 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: tornado.ohiordc.rr.com 1122740836 65.31.62.213 (Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:27:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:27:16 EDT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3859 Date: 2005-07-30T16:27:16+00:00 List-Id: In article <42eb52ec_2@news.arcor-ip.de>, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > John B. Matthews wrote: > > In article , > > Simon Wright 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/