Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?


Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

M E Leypold writes:
Can I:

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Yes, and you must distribute the sources of X, too, since X must be
under terms compatible with the GPL.

Yes, of course. My idea was that there is no extra source. It is S2
which has the main procedure and glues S1 and S3 together :-).

You can even choose to distribute X under GMGPL.

- 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.

Yes, that's true. To make things clear to the licensee, you can
distribute the libraries, and X, in separate source packages.

OK. That answers at least one of the questions with which I started 2
weeks (??) ago in the DTRAQ thread.

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

I don't think there is a contradiction.

Of course one would want to do that for whatever reason ever. I do not
want to discuss the fairness or unfairness of that or what one could
expect the authors of S1, S2 to do or not to do. I just want to know,
wether the authors of S1 and S2 (if they want) license S1 and S2 as
GMGPL and be sure that they can be used in aforesaid manner.

Yes, they can.

Or do they have to license as GPL to ensure "linkability" with a GPL
library?

No, they don't. The GMGPL already ensures "linkability", it is
GPL-compatible.

Thanks. At least we have an agreement here in opinion, even if we are
not lawyers. Some of the arguments I heard in the discussion seemed to
imply different or skirted the issue altogether.

Regards -- Markus
.

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: Qt4Ada: Qt for Ada
    ... And we will see if GPL libraries give a significant boost to free ... software development over GMGPL libraries. ... Maybe Ada catches up now than the libs are GPL? ...
    (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)