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: 103376,71b4c0131a8a22a4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ?
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <Bs7ei.193935$p47.177413@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
References: <f4rsv5$6g9$1@online.de> <f4ukr6$meq$1@online.de>
	 <f532ll$4gv$1@online.de>
	 <MXrdi.97339$Sa4.30117@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	 <1182160706.208857@xnews001>
	 <Bs7ei.193935$p47.177413@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <1182341347.7759.48.camel@kartoffel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:09:07 +0200
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 2007 14:09:04 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 088d3011.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Jin2JoOU85==FQB?mjjV504IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR14nDHegD_]R54QgDPm8>ck1N[W<lHX`=B4\6BhD5G6\i<miL2?^<X>]0
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16264
Date: 2007-06-20T14:09:04+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:38 +0000, anon wrote:

> And for the rest ask a LAYWER. I have testing what I say in court and 
> I won, The case was based on GPL version 1 to Version 2 policy.  They 
> thought like you that the source would still be under the old GPL version 
> 1 but when OSI/FSF adopted version 2. 

Still no reason to imply in broad terms that every existing contract
about existing GPLed software will become void just because some next
version of some software somewhere is moving to some other license,
for whatever unspecified contract. Legal certainty exists.
Indeed, this is best answered by lawyers and judges and juries (where
they exists) in the respective countries--provided they have a clue
about what copyright, licensing, contracts, international law, etc.
mean.