Re: Linking clause deleted from GNAT GPL
On Thursday 24 November 2005 20:42, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
I don't think you understand. The restriction is on the removal of the
additional permissions. In your example, the restriction is that if I do not
wish to grant those additional permissions to Jim *, then I am still forced
to do so. To quote the GPL (from memory), "You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
> > 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.
Exactly! But what if I don't want to do that? The restriction is forcing
others to use license terms that are not in the GNU General Public License.
> > 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.
Section 2 sayeth:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
If you cannot license them under the same terms for any reason, whatever it
might be, then sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 apply. If that reason is because
there is an exception that cannot be removed, then it would still apply. The
reason that many exceptions (including the one recommended by the FSF) allow
removal of the exception, is so that they are under the same license.
> 2. The exception is only needed when the Ada source has generics that
> can be instantiated.
I have no idea about Ada, so I cannot comment on this.