Re: Linking clause deleted from GNAT GPL
Arnoud Engelfriet <firstname.lastname@example.org> quoted:
> As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from GNADE
> Ada units, or you link GNADE Ada units or libraries with other files
> to produce an executable, these units or libraries do not by itself
> cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public
> License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons
> why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Public License.
In any case, the language in this exception is sloppy. It is never the
case that something external to me can by itself _cause_ an executable
in which I have copyright interest to "be covered by the GPL".
What sometimes _is_ the case is that the license requires _me_ to
grant GPL rights to my copyright. But if I decide to ignore this
requirement, there is nothing that automatically _causes_ a licence
for my work to be granted nonetheless. The fact that I will be liable
to the original licensor for having created copies without permission,
does not cause a license grant _from me_ to magically spring into
> I was quite surprised to see in the above document a reference to the
> GPL's derivative work clause using the words "the GPL software
> infects yours".
These sloppities lend support to the hypothesis that the exception was
not drafted by the FSF's usual license advisors. Is it really FSF
Henning Makholm "Det er du nok fandens ene om at
mene. For det ligger i Australien!"