Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0

["Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Björn Persson a écrit :
> The answers I have managed to get from Adacore are quite different from
> what Ludovic and Markus have reported. These answers are far from crystal
> clear, but the best way I can interpret them is as follows:

After reading the rest of your post, it appears to me that the replies
you got were very close to the ones I got; only your interpretation
differs slightly. I agree that the answers we both got left a lot
unanswered.

> · There is *not* a policy that license statements in files headers and
> readme files shouldn't be believed.

My interpretation is: there is no policy at all; they have OTOH
confirmed very explicitly to me that any files downloaded from the CVS
repository is under pure GPL, even though (as I pointed out) most files
contain the linking exception.

Robert Dewar reiterated his statement in an email to me, but also said
he is not allowed to give legal advice, so I conclude that whatever he
said had no legal force either. Catch-22 :)

> · Their licensing policy hasn't changed in any significant way. (Yeah
> right!)

It will be difficult for them to convince us of that. I think they have
always *intended* the libre site and the CVS server for free software
developers *only*, but they have never actively prevented non-free
developers from using their software either, and the letter of the
source files even explicitly allowed such usage. That letter, possibly,
was at odds with AdaCore's spirit.

> · They think all the license statements in the packages accurately reflect
> the license you get.

Neither reply you posted from Cyrille Comar supports that point of
view; he never mentioned the license statements in the packages, in
fact. He only referred to the "landing page" on the libre site.
Furthermore, he alluded to the lack of "suitability" of packages
downloaded from libre for non-libre development, but did not say
whether such development was *allowed* or *forbidden*. It is not clear
to me whether that "suitability" is technical (i.e. not supported) or
legal (i.e. not allowed). A clarification will be most welcome, if they
post one on their web site.

> · When you download the libraries bundled with Gnat GPL, you get a pure
> GPL for the whole bundle.

Yes, that much has always been clear; these source files do not contain
the exception language anymore.

> · As for what license you get when you download a library separately: No
> comment.

Indeed, and this is where the trouble begins. I specifically asked that
question to them and they said it is GPL, even if you download from
their CVS servers and even if the files contain the linking and generic
instantiation exception text.  I did point out to them that the
contradiction was a big source of confusion.

> When there are contradicting claims, I'll go for the one that is closest
> to the source. That means I'll stick to the license that is stated in each
> piece of code, as downloaded directly from Libre (for packages whose
> copyright belongs to Adacore). It's not that I think Ludovic or Markus is
> lying, but anything posted here by a third party is technically a rumor
> (including this post).
>
> So it seems that for most of the libraries I get a pure GPL if I download
> a tarball, but GMGPL if I download it from CVS. As there are contradictions
> in some tarballs it may be safest to go for CVS; the license statements
> seem to be more consistent there.

After what Hyman Rosen said, it would seem that this stance would
probably stand trial in a court, but it contradicts the statements I
received from AdaCore. But IANAL, as usual :/

I have already voiced my position as a Debian developer: I will retain
the GMGPL for existing libraries (those in Sarge) but will switch to
the pure GPL for newer versions (those in Etch), in order to comply
with AdaCore's stated (in email) license. Furthermore, I am removing
the linking and generic instantiation exception text from the source
files in Debian, in order to reduce the potential for confusion; and I
also explain the license change in the copyright file: see the
copyright files in asis [1] and libxmlada2 [2] for the first examples.

[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/asis.html
[2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/libx/libxmlada2.html

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.