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: 103376,65ee5ef07756dfe2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.enertel.nl!nntpfeed-01.ops.asmr-01.energis-idc.net!216.196.110.149.MISMATCH!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!wagner.news.clara.net!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: "Luke A. Guest" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OpenALada Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:14:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1106443820.514819.135740@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <41f35d8b$1@news.broadpark.no> <87acr0uxf8.fsf@insalien.org> <1106489050.628027.211230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1106499868.378719.131440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <41f44a62$0$816$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: abyss2.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1108674889 13455 62.49.62.197 (17 Feb 2005 21:14:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:14:49 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8389 Date: 2005-02-17T21:14:47+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:07:44 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Luke A. Guest wrote: > >> Yeah, some bindings are released under certain licenses which actually >> stop the use of the library, i.e. a BSD licensed lib could have a GPL >> licensed Ada binding, meaning that binding couldn't be used in a >> commercial app. So yeah, it does matter and it should be specified. > > Just to make sure, commercial applications can very well be covered > by the GPL, the LGPL, or the GMGPL, or whatever license, > if the paying customer agrees. Some do pay for GPLed software, > and not every commercial entity can be shown to be a free rider, > as I guess you are implying here as if it were a matter of course. Well, I'm no lawyer but the thing that I'm interested in is being able to build a piece of software and then sell the result in binary form. Unfortunately, there are a quite a few libraries that I'll be binding to, OpenAL, OpenGL (which I'm working on myself, so that'll most probably be GMGPL), X, image libs, etc. > Another way of using GPLed software in heavily commercial > applications is running profitable in house server software. Yeah, but I'm talking about selling something I have developed. Thanks, Luke.