>In article <36E25778.C056829@chocolatesaltyballs.com>, > root wrote: > >Well a lot of confusion and misunderstanding here, so it >is a useful opportunity to clarify things: Well, obviously a statement intended to dumb down, assume the high ground and set things up nicely for what's to follow.... >> because if one of those contributors says NO, end of >> story. > >Well it is worse than this if you think about it. >What if >someone makes a fix that is not under the GPL, then you >have a derivative work that cannot be distributed without >the explicit permission of both copyright holders (because >of course the GPL one one part does not permit you to >distribute other things not covered by the GPL). Note that >in this case the holder of the copyright on the non-GPL'ed >modification cannot distribute the combined work, since >the GPL prevents this. This example is plain wrong. The person can't "fix" a GPL work unless the person agrees to the GPL terms (section 5). So " a fix that is not under the GPL" is just not going to see the light of day! 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it. And once the person accept the GPL terms they can't release it to others under any licence more restrictive than the GPL (end para of section 2.) "...when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." ACT has copyright on parts of GNAT. I take your point that ACT is not bound by the GPL on those parts, however many other people/organisations have contributed to GNAT and the GPL is there to make sure that such works are not made proprietary. >If ACT or some other entity had decided to maintain GNAT >on a proprietary basis (the GPL makes this trickier but >by no means impossible), then that would have been too bad >but not a contract violation. The only way you could have done this was to have exclusive copyright on the whole of GNAT. This IS an insight for me, thank you, however you don't, so you can't, so stop saying you could. (just thought! or gain exclusive copyright via purchase of the copyright from all the other parties of the GNAT version who's upgrade is to be made proprietary ! I wonder if Microsoft are about to make Linus and his mates an offer they can't refuse?!? ) >I constantly run into people who think that ACT is somehow, >by someone, or something, *required* to make public Never said you were required to release, just said if you did it would have to be GPL, and until you buy copyright ownership of the complete source tree it stays that way (although this wasn't my origin premise). >"It is the policy of Ada Core Technologies, and ACT/EUrope, >that GNAT and its associated tool set will continue to be >distributed under the GPL (or GGPL) and that public >versions will be released from time to time that reflect >the complete state of the technology in open source form." This is the crux, the commercial versions are as "public" as the public versions, they are as public as they are ever going to be. They are GPL :) the technology is already open source. While I don't agree with your alpha/beta testing policy (it's your funeral to think you wouldn't get there quicker with an open daily CVS). To release a stable version and not at the same time release the functional identical public version is not in the spirit of the GPL. Which you haven't done yet, so I'm not accusing. Don't get offended either, you leave yourself open to such cynicism, with two GPL releases, one of which is called commercial with implied functional difference, that only paying customers can independently verify. >> 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. > >If you have a legitimate license (the GPL in this case), >you can certainly modify it and distribute the modification >in any form allowed by the GPL (your modification does not >have to be under the GPL, it can be under a more liberal >license, e.g. be in the public domain, that is up to you). Sorry but you've just quoted me and then repeated me! (Although its section 2 not 4). Anything more relaxed is virtually giving it away without licence, anything more restrictive is prohibited by the GPL. I.e. either give it away, and forget licence discussion or release it under the GPL. >> What you are saying is that you never can[came] by the source >> through the GPL therefore you are not covered by it. >> Interesting point. > >No no, that's not quite right. The *copyright holder* does >not need a license to use their own stuff. They can do >anything they like. In the case of ACT, we definitely need >a license to use other people's copyrighted software: Gratefully noted. An insight into GPL workings, and a GPL work made of many different copyrights :) >Suppose for example, you right some GPL'ed unit, you then >assign the copyright in the normal manner to IBM. They then >make a proprietary version, which they hold the copyright >to, and refuse to license it, even to you. Sound unfair? Definitively, which is a good reason to keep your copyright and not sign it over to a commercial interest like ACT for example. ACT can become IBM-ACT overnight if the price is right. Yes, you've stated you're a private company, so hostile takeover of ACT is improbably, but who knows what the commercial future for an Ada compiler vendor/support company is (Rosy I hope :). >I often find this is a confusion, people somehow think that >any instance of the GPL involves the FSF. This of course >is not the case. The GPL is just a license which anyone >is free to use in any situation they like. No! I'm not confused. I'm just envisaging a situation where some commercial interest abuses the GPL, who's going to defend the GPL work? It would fall to the FSF/Richard Stallman to pick the flag up. If I wrote some work, placed it under the GPL and had it ripped by Microsoft, the most I could do would be to report it to FSF/Richard Stallman, the flag bearers of the licence, and they'd definitely be interested because of precedence. >> You can no more take GNAT back, that Larry Walls, Linus >> Torvalds and Richard Stallman could take back perl, >> linux, or emacs. > >Well you are probably right from a practical point of view, >but the point is that nothing would legally prevent these >authors from trying to make a proprietary version of their >work. Surely they would fail in the attempt. Thanks for one concession. ACT could say tomorrow "it is our commercial policy to nolonger release future versions of GNAT under the GPL", and they'd fail, because of the GPL, because that's its intent. >> The terms copyleft > >Actually this is not a technical term, but just a popular >one. It is probably unfortunate since it has tended to >create the impression that GPL'ed software is not >copyrighted, but rather exists in some strange legal >state different from copyright. Note that the GPL itself >(quite deliberately) does NOT use the term copyleft. Yes. I should have known better than to use the term "copyleft" when talking re lawfully binding licence. I was trying to rise above the strict interpretation of the GPL, to highlight the intent. >The GPL is indeed a Rolls-Royce of licenses from the point >of view of the licensor, and helping companies to realize >that this is the case, and helping them to realize that >the GPL is highly desirable from their point of view is >what this is all about. That might be your goal, but mine was just to determine that GNAT is and all future versions will always be GPL open source. The dangers of an individual or organisation's copyright remaining within the GPL is a good argument for having more than one party involved in development, if it is truly open source and others are contributing their efforts. I can't predict the future, no more than you, but I would wager that the day GNAT has a single copyright source of ACT, is the day everyone has to pay for a new version (and not just the cost of making the CD). You can disagree and almost certainly will, it's just my view and that's my right. I shall watch the percentage of ACT copyright notices in GNAT with interest.