Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?


Björn Persson <spam-away@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

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.

Hm. I now begin to doubt wether you're ever allowed to strip the
exception from a derived work. I assume the LE (linking exception
forms on unit or document with the GPL. Where the GPL says "this
license" it should in the GMGPL case mean GPL + LE => GMGPL.

If that is right, one could force an executable under GPL by inserting
files that are pure GPL into the source. But it should not be possible
to strip the linking exceaption from those parts that have them.

Of course everything can be relicensed under another license: If _all_
copyright holders agree. I do not want to wake sleeping dogs here, but
I suggest that anyone intrested in the question tries to check
copyright history of and contributors to GtkAda and Florist.

At leaset some people that wrote in c.l.a. seem not to have signed
over their right to ACT when contributing.


Regards -- Markus

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch
    ... if I get the source from ACT CVS it's GPL and if I get it from one ... that it has been distributed as GMGPL. ... Theoretically, I could ask the FSF for a GMGPL license, and maybe get ... AdaCore, ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?
    ... make anything without a GPL license. ... That is not Freedom. ... and GMGPL also have their place. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?
    ... on students, hobbyists, or free software developers. ... The GPL is viral and booch, charles, AdaCL - all currently GMGPL ... Is there any contradiction in the license terms or is that ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?
    ... Could make a change if members of the above list decided to ... you may extend this exception to your version ... I contributed to a GMGPL project not a pure GPL ... what I will do for the future is to use any license other than ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • 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)