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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,35ce1c7836290812
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: David Botton <David@Botton.com>
Subject: Re: SGI GNAT Question? (Long)
Date: 1999/03/07
Message-ID: <36E294AB.86AFBA58@Botton.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 452229545
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7bflkk$78i$1@news.ro.com> <7bhlb2$h4n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <7bia5u$3lt$1@news.ro.com> <7bkasm$rlt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <36DE8585.2B5E6A5C@spam.com> <7bmbr5$j3p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <36DFA6FB.D3A2AD84@spam.com> <7bos1q$ogq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <7bp6pv$2mm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7bpjoe$eia$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <36E25778.C056829@chocolatesaltyballs.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

root wrote:
> Note the use of the "if" at the start. Are you claiming literal
> ownership of GNAT?

I think Robert Dewar was referring to those parts of GNAT which were
written by ACT. There is no reason why he could not withhold further
development of these portions or re-release those portions as separate
packages not under the GPL.

> ALL versions of GNAT are GPL and they always will be,

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

That may be true, but the GPL does not say that the software must be
released to the public. There are many drivers for linux and other
patches to the kernel that are not GPL and have all the same
restrictions as more "traditional" non-GPL software.

As an illustration, the program PINE branched about a year ago in to a
GPL version and a non-GPL version. GNAT as it is today can not be taken
away, but that doesn't mean that future work has to be made public or
under the GPL.

> 
> > 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 ?

No, Robert Dewar was making it clear the the Microsoft EULA and the Free
Software Foundation GPL are the same category of document, a license
agreement.

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

Is copyleft a legal term? I thought it was slang for the copyrighted
software that used copyright law to keep information public instead of
private. I'll look it up.

David Botton