Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com>]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> If one develops software that is specific for and based upon Linux, then one
> is obliged to use a GNU license. The GNU license does not permit one to stop
> others from giving away or selling one's work. 

Sigh, here we go again.  No, the GNU license does not require that.  It 
has two requirements.

First, if you modify the software subject to the GNU license, and 
distribute the modified code, you are required to distribute the source 
code for your modifications on the same basis as the GNU software.

Second, if your software is not directly linked to code produced by the 
copylefted software, you can sell it or distribute it any way you choose.

So if your system does require modifications to Linux, you have to make 
those modifications available to anyone who buys your product.  But 
nothing requires you to sell your product, or give your product, to 
anyone.  The point of the copyleft is to prevent someone from 
copyrighting a bug fix, and using that to make Linux or emacs or 
whatever proprietary.  It says nothing at all about all proprietary 
software.

At the interface, most libraries are subject to a modified license so 
that they can be linked either statically or dynamically as part of an 
executable image of a proprietary product.  So it may be that some 
library is incorrectly licensed, and that should be considered a bug to 
be fixed.  But the intent is not for Linux and GNU to be a virus that 
infects software it touches.  The licenses are designed to protect the 
status of Linux and other FSF software, and that is all.

ACT is a perfect example of how the copyleft is intended to work.  ACT 
does distribute some versions of GNAT as both free as in speech, and 
free as in beer, free software.  They have other versions, and other Ada 
tools which they do not distribute free in any way.  They put a lot of 
effort into insuring that the licenses in their software is as it should 
be so that their paying customers who are building commercial products 
can continue to use GNAT.  Obviously, their business would be hurt badly 
if their commercial customers could not use GNAT.  And, no, you don't 
need a contract with ACT to use GNAT in commercial products.

But be careful.  If you need a validated Ada compiler, you do need to 
contract with GNAT to get one.  If you only need a validated compiler 
for final delivery, you can wait on signing the contract.--But I don't 
recommend doing so, ACT's support is among the best compiler support I 
have ever seen, or provided.   (The reason for all this about validated 
compilers has little or nothing to do with making money.  ACT will be 
swearing that the compiler they provided you with is a validated 
compiler when used as you use it, on this hardware with, this operating 
system release, and these compiler options.  Compilers are not validated 
in a vacuum, and ACT needs to fill in the blanks, if you will, to give 
you a 'real' validation certificate.  If you felt like it, you could 
validate the GNAT compiler in your environment or pay someone else to do 
it for you.  But they would probably charge more than ACT. ;-)

-- 
                                              Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh