> breaking GNAT's license doesn't make the software created GPL
This is an important distinction.
But it's still true, that using the Ada core GPL Ada compiler, which does not come with lgpl/run-time exception - you can only legally distribute binaries under the GPL (or commercial license).
This does not matter much if you don't distribute code to others (eg: break system of a car - gpl/commercial; build a web server to sell/stream movies - gpl/internal use).
I still think it's probably a mistake to have the fsf and Ada core version be so similar, yet differently licensed (because it is confusing - most are used to gpl compilers comming with lgpl/runtime exception, like gcc).
This is an important distinction.
But it's still true, that using the Ada core GPL Ada compiler, which does not come with lgpl/run-time exception - you can only legally distribute binaries under the GPL (or commercial license).
This does not matter much if you don't distribute code to others (eg: break system of a car - gpl/commercial; build a web server to sell/stream movies - gpl/internal use).
I still think it's probably a mistake to have the fsf and Ada core version be so similar, yet differently licensed (because it is confusing - most are used to gpl compilers comming with lgpl/runtime exception, like gcc).