On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:47 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote: > Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The no-service contract version of the GPL is not the same as the > > standard GPLv2. > > I don't see how that can be--we're talking about a GCC-based compiler, > right?
I found the real reason why the GPL'd GNAT compiler's produced executables are required to be GPL'd, and it has nothing to do with the license of the compiler: "What is the license of the GNAT GPL Edition? Everything (tools, runtime, libraries) in the GNAT GPL Edition is licensed under the General Public License (GPL). This ensures that executables generated by the GNAT GPL Edition are Free Software and that source code is made available with the executables, giving the freedom to recepients to run, study, modify, adapt, and redistribute sources and execuatbles under the terms of the GPL."[1] Note that it says the runtime *and* the libraries are GPL. Thus the linking clause in the GPL requires that programs that link against them (the executable in other words) must be GPL'd. Note that GLibC, while being GPL, has an exception clause in it, allowing linking to it by code of any license. Hence it's a red herring as far as the discussion and Shed Skin is concerned, although the licensing of any Shed Skin runtime libraries should be a concern to folks. [1] https://libre.adacore.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
