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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:d405:: with SMTP id l5-v6mr15633191iog.70.1525444439914; Fri, 04 May 2018 07:33:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:830:: with SMTP id 45-v6mr1904843oty.7.1525444439625; Fri, 04 May 2018 07:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!v8-v6no1520544itc.0!news-out.google.com!15-v6ni1653itg.0!nntp.google.com!u74-v6no410375itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 07:33:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <9c3a75d6-a01f-4cfa-9493-10b8b082ead8@googlegroups.com> <114db2c4-1e8c-4506-8d7c-df955dd9f808@googlegroups.com> <87d0yc1lsq.fsf@nightsong.com> <878t901jp4.fsf@nightsong.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <38dddb6a-0e6f-4dcb-ade2-241528b61288@googlegroups.com> Subject: 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? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 14:33:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51970 Date: 2018-05-04T07:33:59-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:36:10 AM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote: > "Dan'l Miller" writes: >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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 tha= t that bug fix or new feature appears in FSF GNAT? Well, that actually brings up another can of worms to untangle: Does AdaCo= re have a beyond-GPL contractual agreement for paying customers of GNAT Pro= to refrain from distributing the source code that they receive with GNAT P= ro? Assuming that GNAT Pro is distributed under the GMGPL (and not a propr= ietary EULA) to paying GNAT Pro customers, under the terms clearly stated i= n the GMGPL, those paying customers would have a right to have the source c= ode 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 t= hat 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 do= ne 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, ov= erriding the GMGPL? Precisely which portion of GMGPL would permit such bin= ding side contracts to restrict freedom of distribution of source code of G= NAT Pro compiler and runtime? Or does the GMGPL =E2=80=A2categorically=E2= =80=A2 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 conte= nt.=20 > > As assignee, FSF owns the content of those rights-assigned files no mat= ter > > what the assigner legitimately put into them as work for hire. >=20 > 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 docum= ent; 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 Softw= are Foundation or Copyright AdaCore Technologies, Inc? For files that were= created under the $3 million Air Force contract at New York University, ho= w on earth could those files say Copyright AdaCore Technologies, Inc when N= YU assigned all rights to Free Software Foundation decades ago? Hence, let= us assume that the files within AdaCore say Copyright Free Software Founda= tion in them, as that is what assignment of rights to copy would seem to ab= solutely 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 P= ro receives as a =E2=80=A2distribution=E2=80=A2 of a GMGPLed work under cop= yright law? The GMGPL seems to provide for absolutely no latency or delay = mechanism, other than the time required to write a recording medium and sen= d it in the postal mail or private courier. (The other options in the GMGP= L are even faster delivery: download from server or source code is provide= d 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 F= SF would control any file (even within AdaCore) that has Copyright Free Sof= tware Foundation notice at the top. Except for a new file, all edits to fi= les at AdaCore dating back to the Ada9X NYU contract would be derivative wo= rk of a file whose rights to copy (and distribute in GNAT Pro to paying cus= tomers) 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 agre= ement 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 t= he source code and redistribute GNAT Pro publicly as both executable derive= d work and source code? Once the rights to copy the files comprising the G= NAT compiler and its runtime were assigned to FSF long ago, wouldn't the GM= GPL 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 inva= de AdaCore's walls & servers to acquire that source code. That is why the = GMGPL v2 or v3 says that the source code must be =E2=80=A2voluntarily=E2=80= =A2 made available via various mechanisms to remain in compliance with the = GPL base license of GMGPL. The GPL is not about subpoenas forcibly piercin= g barriers; the GPL is about voluntarily providing downloads from servers a= nd recording media in the mail to remain in compliance with the license. P= recisely which clause & sentence of the GMGPL says that AdaCore can distrib= ute GNAT Pro to paying customers while months or years later =E2=80=9Cpushi= ng=E2=80=9D their derivative work? (The last I checked, the word =E2=80=9C= push=E2=80=9D doesn't appear in the GMGPL or its base GPL.) Months or year= s is a really really long download or a really really long =E2=80=98the che= cks in the mail=E2=80=99-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 o= f files whose rights to copy were assigned to FSF long ago? Under precisel= y what legal basis would FSF as irrevocable assignee not be the owner of fi= les whose rights to copy (and distribute GNAT Pro) were assigned to FSF yea= rs 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 quo= ting chapter & verse from the GMGPL and USA's copyright law, then now you h= ave seen something that would contradict this. Does the GMGPL and USA copy= right 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 sp= eaking for only myself in novelty-entertainment value for my own personal e= njoyment as a purely-hypothetical/theoretical logic exercise regarding my u= nderstanding of plain-meaning reading of English prose. Do not rely on any= of this without consulting a lawyer.