Talk:GNAT Modified General Public License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New name: License of GNU Ada[edit]

I am not quite happy with the new name. All Ada programmers know the Licence under the name of "Modified GPL" and the shortcut "MGPL". This is because - just like the Linux kernel - GNAT has a build in Licence check via the pragma License command.

So while your naming is prehaps politicly correct - it's what the user will type into the search box.

Also, not all of Ada is MGPL - i.E. packages derived from ISO 8652 are "unrestriced".

I'm totally agree, this license always has been refered to as Modified GPL (MGPL) or GNAT Modified GPL (GMGPL) [1] [2] [3]. This new name for the article, License of GNU Ada, is not appropiate. I propose to make this one a redirection to the old article name Modified GNU General Public License. We could even delete it, because Wikipedia isn't a search engine, although I'm more inclined to make it a redirect page (redirections are cheap [4], do not introduce much overhead to the servers). --suruena 10:00, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
There are zillions of other versions of the GPL modified by exceptions -- why shouldn't one of them be called the "Modified GPL"? What about "Ada Modified GPL"? For now, changing it to something at least unambiguous if not super-common.
Maybe simply "GNAT Modified GPL" --suruena 12:38, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

GPL not GGPL[edit]

Since it is the GNU General Public License MGPL would expand to GNU Modified General Public License.

--Krischik 17:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • No, GMGPL has always expanded to GNAT Modified General Public License. —optikos (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name again[edit]

There's no article for the license of GNU Guile. GNU Guile, like GNAT and Ada, uses a version of the GPL with modifications which weaken its copyleft characteristics. There may also be other projects with similar licenses. So instead of starting a new article for the license of Guile, I propose generalising this article to discuss the category of GPLs which are used for Guile, GNAT, Ada, and possibly one or two more that I'm not aware of right now. I don't have a specific name in mind for the article, "Modified GPLs" is one option, although that would encompass the Affero General Public License (but, hey, maybe that would be a good idea). Comments much appreciated. Gronky 13:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Putting them all into one article might not be a bad idea. There's little to say about each one individually and many aren't even particularly important. Just my 2c. --kingboyk 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


What was the motivation for this license? --Abdull (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The compilation of generic units in the Ada standard library produces derivative works of the standard library which are then to be linked into executables that perhaps have a license that is incompatible with the GPL. Just as with the LGPL for the C standard library, FSF does not seek to limit the usage of any of the GCC compilers to only producing libraries or executables that are GPL-compatibly licensed. But this party-line explanation is not complete. Two questions are begged (and we do beg for answers to them, because it seems that at least one of them should be logically/legally problematic)
    • Why was the LGPL not sufficient for GCC Ada?
    • Why is the LGPL sufficient for instantiating templates from the GCC C++ standard library to link with an executable whose license is incompatible with the GPL?

If Ada and Guile need a relaxation of GPL's copyleft that LGPL cannot provide, then why doesn't C++ need a substantially-similar relaxation of copyleft that LGPL cannot provide? —optikos (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)