Re: What luck we had ...

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

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> > We didn't get the project (for various reason that had nothing to do
> > with Ada in this case :-)), but I suppose we have to count ourselves
> > really lucky that we didn't gat it: This customer would have come in
> > for multiple damages if he had found that his codebase got suddenly
> > contaminated. Of course we could have done it again in another
> > language, but then he'd have come in for contractual damages because
> > of the project being behind schedule.
> 
> A change to the license on future distributions does not change the
> license under which you obtained it. If you obtained a GMGPL version
> of GtkAda 2.4.0, then you had a GMGPL version, regardless of the
> license used later. If you kept that version, then you still have a
> GMGPL version. You also have the right to redistribute that GMGPL
> version granting the GMGPL to those you distribute it to.

I'd hope so, but that is exactly the thing that seems to be under
doubt at present. See all the other posts on that subject (not only
mine). AdaCore isn't helpful on that, also, since they don't remember
having ever distributed GMGPL version of anything. Take that together
with the reported attitude of "you cannot rely on COPYING, file
headers or accompaning files, only on letters from the licensor"
(whoever that might be), you see that a situation of doubt arises.

Whereas I'm convinced (after now finding the license notices from the
old sites in my archive) that indeed, the situation is as you
describe, there is no positive statement on that to be got from ACT. 

My statement above was half ironic. But only half: I'm indeed glad
that I've not to explain this customer an ambivalent situation in
which the supposed copyright holder cannot remember the former license
and our only assurance of our license status would be a backup copy on
a rather old and grubby tape or CD.

It smells like a situation where you'd need a lawyer for protection,
and the customer wouldn't like it. And of course would put everything
on the account of the unreliability of Open Source and the shiftyness
and even sneakiness of the GPL: One day you have GMGPL and suddenly
there is DOUBT (did I mention that customers often abhor doubt, since
it translates to risk in business?) and possibly what first was just
harmless code in the customers CVS might have become a GPL trojan
horse. I can explain all that. I can try to assure. But where is the
limit where the customer just has a better feeling not to use any Open
Source any more ("you never know what you get") and looks for clear
contracts and proprietary code bases again?

But never mind: The situation didn't happen anyway. (The comment on
damages for delay was real thaough, and it there is room for
discussion wether the _possibly_ changed license wouldn't have been a
good reason to ditch the whole project even months after
start. IANAL.)

Regards -- Markus