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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c6c96fe0302f04f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-17 11:00:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: POLL: Would you use Ada more if... Date: 17 Aug 2002 11:00:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0208171000.3893d213@posting.google.com> References: <3d5ce7f0.12192351@news.demon.co.uk> <3d5cfa8e.16958234@news.demon.co.uk> <5ee5b646.0208170212.632356f2@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1029607207 7435 127.0.0.1 (17 Aug 2002 18:00:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Aug 2002 18:00:07 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28183 Date: 2002-08-17T18:00:07+00:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote in message news: Yes, but if the license is the same? :-) If you download something from the net, it is up to you to verify that it is properly licensed. You can't just assume that because something says it is licensed under the GPL that it is. Three examples: 1. Someone steals microsoft code and puts it on the net with a GPL notice. That in no way protects you if you illegally copy it and use it. 2. Someone modifies a version of a standard GPL tool with non-GPL'ed code, but the tool still looks like it is GPL'ed. This in no way protects you if you illegally copy it and use it. 3. Someone puts out a GPL'ed tool, and in good faith thinks that it is all their own work and they can issue a valid GPL, but in fact there are copyright or patent issues. You are compeltely responsible for any difficulties if you download this. By comparison if you get software from a company with whom you have an executed license agreement, then that other company is taking responsibility for ensuring that the license is valid, and that they are entitled to issue the license, and you are protected. It's quite a big difference. I often find that people do not realize that when they download something from the net, they have to take 100% responsibility on themselves for ensuring that there are no IPR violations. And to remember again, the appearence of a copyright or license statement on the artifact itself has no legal significance, you are not entitled to rely on this information for legal protection. So back to your original question. The license may or may not be "the same", but the big difference is that in one case you take responsibility, in the other case, you sign a contract with another company and that other company takes responsibility. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies