> Is this with the generic-instantiation exception, or am I thinking of a different license?
RTS source files and some LibGCC assembly files are, more or less, exact copies of the
FSF GCC release, plus some patches. So I've reported their licenses as highlighted
in their headers:
"This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any
later version.
This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.
Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional
permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version
3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation."
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't want to hurt anyone, so I've hust tried to stay in a
"maximum correctness mode", reporting licenses verbatim.
But I think that the whole SweetAda hierarchy, due to this, is practically under
the MIT license, and has no limitations.
Corrections welcome.
> How integral is MSYS2 to everything?
SweetAda does work in a windoz environment just in plain cmd shell (with the aid
of PowerShell), because the package includes a port of make, grep and sed utilities.
MSYS2 (or Cygwin), plus the dos2unix utility, is required only to rebuild the RTS,
because the script is currently Bash-only. So if you are a windoz guy and you want
to use a clone from the github repository, you need it.
The bad news: MSYS2 is extremely slow in processing scripts.
Obviously SweetAda works much better in a Linux environment, because this is my native
environment. OS X should work ok, but it is increasingly difficult for me to make toolchains
in that environment (there are problems indeed), and I am limited to check things
in a VM-hosted machine.