Re: SGI GNAT Question? (Long)

[SpamSpamSpam <spam@spam.com>]

dewar@gnat.com wrote:

> (by the way, please stick to usenet conventions and keep
> your lines under 80 characters, you are sending gigantic
> long lines which are a pain!)
>

I am using a feature in Netscape called "auto-wrap" ( thismodern tech. is
great :) so I don't see the size of the line
as its para from my view. But I have inserted hard returns
as requested.


> In
> fact ACT would not be willing to assign the copyrights
> except using the FSF form of assignment.
>

A "currently willing" caveat would fit well here as you're a
company.Employees come and go, people sell shares and company policy
changes according to market need.

> Certainly Richard might be willing to offer advice, but as
> I mentioned before he would not have legal standing in such
> a case. It is basically up to you to protect your own
> copyright. Note incidentally that recent court decisions
> have usefully clarified that copyright is not just of the
> literal expression of code, but also of its various levels
> of abstraction, so the copyright protection which underlies

So I stand in court, but I'd be funded by those with a concernfor open
source and GPL. So who's REALLY bringing the case ?
me or the open source community ?

> > 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.
>
> Well I am always amused by people proclaiming that they
> know the true intent of the GPL,

And your sheer arrogance visible in nearly every post amusesme.  The true
intent is stated the preamble in a manner the plain
english society would be proud of.

"The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General
Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share
and change free software--to make sure the software is free for
all its users."

The term "copyleft" was, I believe, intended to convey the intent
of GPL detailed in plain english in the preamble. You don't
need briefings from corporate lawyers to understand the intent (
even if the remaining "copyright" rights escaped you :)

Thats the crux of these posts and discussion of the nature of the
commercial and public versions of GPL GNAT and the fact that
you seek to prevent the copy and redistribution of a GPL version
called 3.11b2, stating first that its not based on 3.11p then that
they are both GPL but not the same, then that they atleast differ
in version header and then that they only differ in version headers.
If you want to concentrate/distract on my lack of knowledge of
the finer points of  the GPL, fine. After many posts I've got
from you, by any means, a statement that 3.11b2 is 3.11p.

> and then complaining at
> us that we somehow are not following it,

Not complaining, just seeking clarification regards the differencesin
"commercial" and "public" versions of GNAT, and resolving
how you get to the position of saying a GPL work is not for
redistribution because its commercial.

> when in fact we
> work closely with Richard Stallman, and he knows exactly
> how we work, and *he* is perfectly comfortable that it is
> appropriate.

Funny. I contacted GNU.org via email sometime ago and they toldme that
while ACT were perfectly entitled to require you
to part with a "support" fee for a copy of their "commercial" version
it was not in the spirit of the GPL and anyone who obtained a copy
was still free to redistribute it. For the price of a CD for example.

> We are indeed one of the few companies that
> is 100% committed to open source software for all our
> products, and that is considered part of the GNU project
> by Richard (and by us!)

Again funny, when I stated that you were one of the few
commericalmaintainers of GPL source, you told me I didn't know what was
going
on.

> > 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.
>
> You of course have no basis whatsoever for this claim, but
> you are right, people are free to make any outrageous claim
> they like at any time!

Well, depends what gets your goat as to what you find outrageous.The basis
I have for this claim  are GPL versions I cannot see without
paying a fee well above redistribution costs.  Calling a GPL work
"commerical", restricting its redistribution and asking everyone to believe
on
trust ( however well place) that theres no functional difference between
this and the "public" version is something I find outrageous.