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?

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:36:10 AM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> "Dan'l Miller" writes:
> 
> > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:48:26 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> >> (3b) Nor have I evidence that new AdaCore work trickles through into
> >> the FSF system.
> >
> > Yes, that is the beef that some people are claiming: AdaCore GNAT work
> > not showing up in FSF GNAT.  I'm glad you concur at some level there.
> 
> It's not that it doesn't show up _ever_, just that it may well not show
> up in FSF until the next major release. Depends how significant it is
> (and how much work it would be).

Everyone, what is the minimum, typical, and maximum latencies that you have observed from the time that an AdaCore GNAT Pro paying customer receives a bug fix or new feature in the GNAT compiler or its runtime to the time that that bug fix or new feature appears in FSF GNAT?

Well, that actually brings up another can of worms to untangle:  Does AdaCore have a beyond-GPL contractual agreement for paying customers of GNAT Pro 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 proprietary 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 customers 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 to 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 never 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 binding side contracts to restrict freedom of distribution of source code of GNAT Pro compiler and runtime?  Or does the GMGPL •categorically• prohibit such side agreements to restrict freedom of distribution of source code of GNAT Pro compiler and runtime?

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 7:35:42 AM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2018-05-03, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> >> The runtime exception still applies to the version that FSF got.
> >
> > What FSF got was irrevocable assignment of all ownership.  The content of
> > the files doesn't matter to the owner of the legal rights to that content. 
> > As assignee, FSF owns the content of those rights-assigned files no matter
> > what the assigner legitimately put into them as work for hire.
> 
> There are two code bases; the AdaCore one and the FSF one.

In copyright law, the focus is on the document.  A code base is not a document; a code base is a mere collection of documents.  But a source-code file is a document.  An executable is a document (which is a derived work from its source code).  So this code base or that code base matters not one whit.  What matters is:  does that file within AdaCore say Copyright Free Software Foundation or Copyright AdaCore Technologies, Inc?  For files that were created under the $3 million Air Force contract at New York University, how on earth could those files say Copyright AdaCore Technologies, Inc when NYU assigned all rights to Free Software Foundation decades ago?  Hence, let us assume that the files within AdaCore say Copyright Free Software Foundation in them, as that is what assignment of rights to copy would seem to absolutely require.  Let us assume that the files within AdaCore also specify the GMGPL.  Under the GMGPL, precisely how could Free Software Foundation not be entitled to receive any source code that a paying customer of GNAT Pro receives as a •distribution• of a GMGPLed work under copyright law?  The GMGPL seems to provide for absolutely no latency or delay mechanism, other than the time required to write a recording medium and send it in the postal mail or private courier.  (The other options in the GMGPL are even faster delivery:  download from server or source code is provided along with the executable derived work.)

> The FSF assignment controls the FSF code base only.

Forget about code bases; it is all about the file.  No, the assignment to FSF would control any file (even within AdaCore) that has Copyright Free Software Foundation notice at the top.  Except for a new file, all edits to files at AdaCore dating back to the Ada9X NYU contract would be derivative work of a file whose rights to copy (and distribute in GNAT Pro to paying customers) have already been assigned to FSF decades ago.  So at the moment of distribution of GNAT Pro to paying customers, AdaCore's edits to long-ago-assigned-to-FSF files can only be distributed under the terms of the GMGPL.  Under the terms of the GMGPL, the freedom of the bits is paramount.  What loophole in GMGPL would permit a more-restrictive superdooper license agreement to be laid atop the GMGPL for paying GNAT Pro customers?

> Someone in AdaCore who is authorised to do so has to decide to push
> code from the AdaCore code base into the FSF code base.

Or under the GMGPL (alone), cannot any paying customer of GNAT Pro obtain the source code and redistribute GNAT Pro publicly as both executable derived work and source code?  Once the rights to copy the files comprising the GNAT compiler and its runtime were assigned to FSF long ago, wouldn't the GMGPL be only contract that governs the freedom of those bits downstream from the distribution of GNAT Pro to paying customers?

> At this point, and _only_ at this point, do the FSF have control
> rights to this pushed code.

  I agree minimally that FSF has absolutely no legal basis to forcibly invade AdaCore's walls & servers to acquire that source code.  That is why the GMGPL v2 or v3 says that the source code must be •voluntarily• made available via various mechanisms to remain in compliance with the GPL base license of GMGPL.  The GPL is not about subpoenas forcibly piercing barriers; the GPL is about voluntarily providing downloads from servers and recording media in the mail to remain in compliance with the license.  Precisely which clause & sentence of the GMGPL says that AdaCore can distribute GNAT Pro to paying customers while months or years later “pushing” their derivative work?  (The last I checked, the word “push” doesn't appear in the GMGPL or its base GPL.)  Months or years is a really really long download or a really really long ‘the checks in the mail’-esque mailing of a recording medium.  I don't see such a delay permitted in the letter or spirit of the GMGPL.  Do you?

> In particular, the FSF cannot just pull code from the AdaCore code base
> and re-licence it under the terms of the FSF codebase without the
> permission of AdaCore. AdaCore have to push code into the FSF code base.

On precisely what legal basis could AdaCore assert its rights of ownership under the GMGPL or under the USA's copyright law?  Precisely which clauses & sentences in the GMGPL permit AdaCore any ownership of derivative works of files whose rights to copy were assigned to FSF long ago?  Under precisely what legal basis would FSF as irrevocable assignee not be the owner of files whose rights to copy (and distribute GNAT Pro) were assigned to FSF years ago?

> This is my understanding of the situation and I have never seen
> anything which contradicts this.

Well, if you were to answer the above awkward questions by meticulously quoting chapter & verse from the GMGPL and USA's copyright law, then now you have seen something that would contradict this.  Does the GMGPL and USA copyright law conform closer to my interpretation or to yours?

DISCLAIMER:
I am not a lawyer and have not passed the bar in any jurisdiction.  I am speaking for only myself in novelty-entertainment value for my own personal enjoyment as a purely-hypothetical/theoretical logic exercise regarding my understanding of plain-meaning reading of English prose.  Do not rely on any of this without consulting a lawyer.