Re: Linking clause deleted from GNAT GPL
On 11/25/05, Brian M. Carlson <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2005 20:42, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > On 11/24/05, Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
-- snip --
> 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.
But they are less restrictive license terms. It is a weaker license
but a stronger copyleft. It is the copyleft we are dealing with.
Also, guess who holds the copyright on GNAT? Yes, it is FSF and
AdaCore. So FSF has given permission for all this.
> > > 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.
So you can go and ask FSF to add a removal clause to the exception.
> > 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.
I have no idea about Ada either: I can't comment much more than I have.
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484