[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linking clause deleted from GNAT GPL

On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Donnellan
> > On 11/23/05, Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
> > > Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com>

> > In what way? The clause means the license of GNAT is actually LESS
> > restrictive than the license of GCC (the GPL).
> "Less" or "more" restrictive does not make unambiguous sense in this
> context.

Here's an example:

"This program is licensed under the GPL...etc....etc..

If your name is Jim then sections 3a and 3b do not apply."

is LESS restrictive than just the GPL. And it is still fully GPL-compatible.

> The purpose of "copyleft" forms of licenses is that the original
> distributor specifies a particular balance of power _among_ the people
> downstream from him.
> A license that is less restrictive for some people downstream (who
> might want to use the code in non-free programs) will be more
> restrictive for other people downstream (who might want to produce
> derived works and not see them used in non-free programs).

No, it will just force some other people to release under  a less
restrictive license.

> The GPL specifies one particular resolution of this conflict: The guy
> who wants to produce a derived work and license it such that it cannot
> be be used in non-free programs gets it his way.
> A "GPL plus unremovable exception" specifies another resolution: The
> guy who wants to use the first guy's derived work in his non-free
> program gets it his way.

I still don't see your point.

> These two are intrinsically incompatible choices.

No they aren't.

> > The only case in which the thing would be undistributable would be
> > if the GCC code was found in *the Ada unit* (i.e. the ADA source
> > files),
> The problem is not even the GCC code (though that is a problem too),
> but the fact that some of the Ada source in Gnat is licensed as GPL
> _without_ the exception. Because GPL and GPL+exception are
> incompatible licenses, an executable containing both kinds of code
> cannot legally be distributed.

1. I don't think they are incompatible.
2. The exception is only needed when the Ada source has generics that
can be instantiated.


This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484

Reply to: