Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

M E Leypold wrote:
Can I:

- Have sources S1, S2, S3 with S1 and S2 being dirtributed to me
under the GMGPL whereas S3 is GPL.

- I then compile S1, S2, S3 to X.

- Obviously X is covered by GPL: I must distribute S1, S2, S3 with X
as the GPL demands.

- But cant' I state that S1, S2 are under GMGPL -- that is, anyone
receiving them is allowed to unbundle them from the source package
of X (which is actually made up from 3 different trees) and can
distribute them (S1, S2) as GMGPL sources or create other GMGPL,
GPL or even closed executables from them.

Question: Is there any contradiction in the license terms or is that
permissible?

That is permissible.

The result can be confusing, for example if S1 is a program, S2 is some library that the program needs, and S3 is Libgnat. I think most people are used to assuming that the machine code of a program will have the same license as the source code. In this case it won't, and that's going to confuse people, but no, there's nothing in the license terms that forbids this.

Note that I thing, that the builder of the excutable X cannot strip
the linking exceaption from the libs S1 and S2 since he/she has not
changed the libs. He would have to refrain from using them if he is
not allowed to link with S3.

I disagree here. I think you can take GMGPL code, strip the exception and redistribute it as pure GPL but otherwise unmodified. You shouldn't do it, because it would serve no purpose other than FUD, but I think it's allowed. I'm not entirely sure about that though.

--
Björn Persson PGP key A88682FD
omb jor ers @sv ge.
r o.b n.p son eri nu
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released
    ... code _available_ for a user to include in her product, GMGPL ... These covers the situation for XPath In Ada and XML EZ Out, which were written because of DTraq, but since they have areas of application beyond that product were broken out on their own for community use. ... I removed the GNAT dependencies from that code, which was primarily the replacement of GNAT.Sockets with AdaSockets, so as to get GMGPL instead of GPL. ... That is true, the source code license terms aren't so crucial, the code could turn out to be tailored for a specific compiler and runtime, but distributed solely as source code, and therefore merely "inherit" the licensing of the RTL with which it is linked. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released
    ... DTraq 1.100 for GNAT GPL 2005 is licensed using the full GPL, ... client remains GMGPL, for what it's worth. ... Public License. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: ada & gui
    ... If you modify a GMGPL library and distribute the modified code, you have to provide the modifications, as required by the GPL. ... AdaCore provides GNAT and sells support to major aerospace and defense contractors. ... So, these companies will use these tools if they can be convinced that they can legally keep their own code proprietary, and only have to make available any modifications to the open source software that was provided to them by the vendor, in this case AdaCore. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available
    ... only available under GPL, not GMGPL. ... The same is true for AWS, GtkAda, XML/Ada etc. but is less of a concern because these libraries are not tightly coupled with the compiler. ... Suppose that GNAT GPL 2005 is chosen as the ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: ada & gui
    ... (Some team members later formed Ada Core Technologies.) ... The contract specified that the compiler must be GPL, but applications compiled with the compiler need not be GPL. ... So lawyers at NYU came up with the GMGPL to get around this. ... The run time would be GMGPL, so applications that included the run time need not be GPL. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)