Re: SGI GNAT Question? (Long)

[root <white@chocolatesaltyballs.com>]

robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <7bp6pv$2mm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> > In article <7bos1q$ogq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >   dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> >
> > >   Similarly, if ACT decided that future versions of the
> > >   ACT copyrighted components of GNAT were to be
> > >   released in fully proprietary form, that would be
> > >   perfectly consistent. Giving someone a license to
> > >   your copyrighted creation does not place limitations
> > >   on YOU, the author!
> >
> > Whoa! I have to admit I missed that one entirely. I guess
> > its a good thing I'm an engineer instead of a laywer.
> 
> But if you "missed that one entirely", it means you have
> some strange peculiar view of the GPL (a not uncommon
> phenomenon :-)
> 
> If I own a program, and I license you to use it, it is
> very hard for me to see why you think that the license
> I give to you would stop me from doing what I like with
> the program. I am not transferring the rights in the
> program to you, just licensing it.

Note the use of the "if" at the start. Are you claiming literal
ownership of GNAT? what do your
fellow contributors ( from your mates(?) at NY to joe bloggs on the
street who sent in a GPL 
bug fix to a GPL source ) say to that? Are they they ALL in unison ?
because if one of those contributors says NO, end of story. What would
the original US government dept that sponsored
the development of a "free" compiler say to that?

If I or anyone who came by the GNAT source through the GPL modified it
and released it to others it would have to be GPL as stated in section 4
and 5.  What you are saying is that you never can by the source through
the GPL, therefore you are not covered by it. Interesting point, but it
only takes one other contributor to say that their code fix which you
incorporated was released under the GPL for you to be bound by it.. so
get real. ALL versions of GNAT are GPL and they always will be, Richard
Stallman probably has a quad of legal cash waiting for the first
commercial enterprise to abuse the GPL, as that would set the precedent.

You can no more take GNAT back, that Larry Walls, Linus Torvalds and
Richard Stallman could take back perl, linux, or emacs.

> When you get a licensed product from Microsoft, you know
> perfectly well that they still own the program and can do
> anything they like with it.

So you have to use Microsoft as an example to make yourself look good in
the GPL world ?

> Well there is *nothing* unusual about the GPL in this
> regard, it is simply a limited license giving the recipient
> of the license certain limited rights to use the
> copyrighted works. 

The terms copyleft, and its simply a licence as a Rolls Royce and a Lada
are cars.