Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes:
> > 
> > As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask
> > each author individually.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting
> apparent changes in licensing conditions.  The issues raised here

Yes. He has my compassion. Just to find myself in the same position
and since I cannot trust mere rumor on c.l.a. (remember: Have to ask
the licensor, directly!) I have written to ACT to ask the same or
perhaps slightly different questions. I looking forward to my
answer(s).

> are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees
> and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences.


> Under English law (and presumably most other places), signed statements
> are not required to form a contract.  In particular, if the parties
> behaved and believed that there is a contract then one exists.
> Evidence such as files, ftp sites, emails etc. can help support
> the claim that a contract existed.  Surely the behaviour of
> the authors and users backs the claim that licences were granted?
> Signatures on bits of paper might help, but still don't provide
> a full guarantee.  IANAL.

I agree.


> As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable,
> non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence.  The GMGPL terms
> add to this, but don't change these basic features.

That was my impression.

> I am at a loss to understand what basis there is for revoking the
> licences already issued.  As a party to the licence

Well -- it seems, the situation is more complex. The source they
distribute now is unchanged BUT with another license (IMHO you can
only drop the exception clause when you change something, but perhaps
that does not apply to the copyright owner).

They don't say the other licenses where not GMGPL or are revoked, They
only don't remember.

> contract between myself and the authors, I feel aggrieved.

So I've been feeling for some time, especially since I have been
repeatedly lectured here on how unreasonable I've been to have
expected more than GPL .. -- What? I've not been expecting GMGPL, I do
have copies of web pages from ACT _telling_ me that I'm licensing
unter GMGPL and I might be forgiven that I find that loss of memory on
ACTs part slightly unsettling.

> I have kept to my side of the bargain.  I'm not convinced they
> have kept to theirs.

:-)


> Some people here will want a formal opinion.  I don't feel I have
> need or resources for a professional view myself.  But I am being
> made extremely wary of exposing myself to the possible legal
> risks involved in *any* substantive business project involving
> these software components.  The way these licences seem to be

That is exactly what I've been saying (look at my post with "luck" in
the title). I _am_ glad that I just barely missed a situation where
I've to explain all this to a certain customer, regardless of wether
we can resolve that with a lawyers help to a point where we see that
we still have rights to use GtkAda under GMGPL.

It's the lawyer that will make the customer very skittish indeed.

And there is my point that all this is damaging Ada beyond
redemption. You can all deny that. You can all say that the hobbyist
can still use that and that the commercial user can still license this
or should be able to pay that. At the end of the day this are just all
very convincing attempts to close the eyes to the inevitable: The
situation as it is, generates uncertainty and doubt. Fear will follow
and I predict the last commercial (and no, Government, NASA, ESA and
defense industry DON'T count, this is all a very closed and special
market of its own) -- I predict that after the water have reached a
certain amount of muddiness, the commercial users will leave Ada as
language or not adopt it, as will the hobbyist with a professional
attitude (the boundaries aren't quite so clear indeed).

> being revoked, changed or withdrawn, without adequate explanation
> is certainly a breach of the implied social "contract" created
> when software is published.

Thanks. You expressed my opinion very clearly.

Regards -- Markus