From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!feeder.news-service.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in
	Etch
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <pan.2006.06.28.10.50.58.723082@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
	 <pan.2006.06.27.15.01.21.462218@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
	 <1151422118.772405.307200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	 <pan.2006.06.27.16.40.22.904913@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
	 <87ac7ypaaa.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	 <pan.2006.06.28.10.50.58.723082@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-ID: <1151493268.24349.37.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:14:29 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jun 2006 13:12:36 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f70aaf96.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC==Y?DT4ahmU;JeejX<a8OB:Q5U85hF6f;4jW\KbG]kaM8GSi?jHD8GO0A4ec2Em]kN?UUng9_FXZ=3>:=P9Ihe`B8@Z?dZ]MOid5
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5204
Date: 2006-06-28T13:12:36+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:51 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:

> "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long
> as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to
> revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the
> software is not free."
> 
> It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software
> that GPL is not revocable.  The Ada software in question does not
> meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really
> have been revoked.

There is no instance of anything being revoked, AFAICS, if AdaCore
is entitled to drop the exception from the source they distribute,
which might feel like something has been revoked. I doubt this
is an adequate description of the (GM)GPL legal situation.

The license text is the GPL in either case, GPL or GPL with the
special exception.

If any license has been granted to anyone, and they have been told
their license has been revoked, although they have done nothing
wrong, please speak up.


> The strange thing is that nobody seems to benefit from the changes
> and the consequent FUD :(

Right. This is why this thread should not continue to try to construct
or reconstruct, or invent, what supposedly was or is legally relevant
information in some past, freely mixing the past and the present.
All we have is hints, and AdaCore notes from two different points in
time.