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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4d70a6d53a28095 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: GtkAda License Question Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1150717691.939423.322620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:23:05 +0200 Message-ID: <174wri33ad56s$.149yes539c0qq$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jun 2006 20:22:54 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 6fb84a29.newsread2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=kA= On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:11:52 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > M E Leypold a �crit : >> So all current practice of distributing GPL software is flawed insofar >> as the COPYYING and README files don't establish a binding agreement >> between the receiver and the author of the software? So the receiver >> has actually find the author (or copyright holder) to ascertain the >> licensing terms and if he finds him, it might be that the copyright >> holder decides that today there are different licensing terms for this >> applicant? >> > COPYING and README are not *proofs*, that's what he meant. Anybody can > take propriatory software and redistribute it with a COPYING file (or > change the headers); this won't make the software free. What Robert said > is that if you want legal assurance that the software is free, you need > a signed letter from the author. In my admittedly ignorant eyes, that looks like a different case. After all, anyone can forge a signature on the letter. But the question is, let Markus correct me, whether the COPYING _as distributed by the author_ is a proof in the court. For example, may the author withdraw authentic COPYING. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de