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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a24:a088:: with SMTP id o130-v6mr15386485ite.35.1525450829711; Fri, 04 May 2018 09:20:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:73c9:: with SMTP id m9-v6mr1924925otk.9.1525450829481; Fri, 04 May 2018 09:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.214.87.MISMATCH!u74-v6no478875itb.0!news-out.google.com!15-v6ni1653itg.0!nntp.google.com!u74-v6no478867itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 09:20:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <38dddb6a-0e6f-4dcb-ade2-241528b61288@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=193.163.1.106; posting-account=Srm5lQoAAAAEMX9rv2ilEKR6FDPapmSq NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.163.1.106 References: <9c3a75d6-a01f-4cfa-9493-10b8b082ead8@googlegroups.com> <114db2c4-1e8c-4506-8d7c-df955dd9f808@googlegroups.com> <87d0yc1lsq.fsf@nightsong.com> <878t901jp4.fsf@nightsong.com> <38dddb6a-0e6f-4dcb-ade2-241528b61288@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <25d61e8a-99e3-4eb1-81eb-e8485ae8de97@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Precisely why can't official FSF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtime en masse from GNAT GPL Community Edition? From: Mark Lorenzen Injection-Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 16:20:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51973 Date: 2018-05-04T09:20:29-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 4:34:01 PM UTC+2, Dan'l Miller wrote: >=20 > Well, that actually brings up another can of worms to untangle: Does Ada= Core have a beyond-GPL contractual agreement for paying customers of GNAT P= ro to refrain from distributing the source code that they receive with GNAT= Pro? Assuming that GNAT Pro is distributed under the GMGPL (and not a pro= prietary EULA) to paying GNAT Pro customers, under the terms clearly stated= in the GMGPL, those paying customers would have a right to have the source= code to GNAT Pro compiler and runtime. Why do no GNAT Pro paying customer= s exercise their own right to distribute the GNAT Pro free(dom) source code= that they receive under GMGPL? Under the GMGPL (alone), they would seem t= o have a right to do so. But paying customers of GNAT Pro have never ever = done this. There must be an extant reason why this redistribution has neve= r ever happened in all these decades. Do paying customers of GNAT Pro sign= a side contract to refrain from distributing the source code to GNAT Pro, = overriding the GMGPL? Precisely which portion of GMGPL would permit such b= inding side contracts to restrict freedom of distribution of source code of= GNAT Pro compiler and runtime? Or does the GMGPL =E2=80=A2categorically= =E2=80=A2 prohibit such side agreements to restrict freedom of distribution= of source code of GNAT Pro compiler and runtime? My employer is (or rather was as the project is now finished) a paying cust= omer. I can see that our copy of GNAT Pro for LEON3 ELF is licensed under G= PL 3 with the Runtime Library Exception. I guess we could redistribute our copy if we wanted to. There is no side co= ntract, hidden agreement or secret handshake. You buy a support contract fo= r a maximum number of developers based on the "honour system" i.e. you don'= t cheat. After downloading the SW you can use it without any license key, r= untime license fee or whatever. However, we (and probably a lot of other of AdaCore's paying customers) are= in the business of developing software for *our* customers - not in the bu= siness of redistributing software with the legal risks that it *may* incur = if e.g. if it turns out that some parts of GNAT Pro are not licensed under = GPL or other legal issues like that. I don't think many customers can see a= compelling business case for redistributing GNAT Pro. Regards, Mark L