Cairo bindings and e-mail license virus bombs

[David Botton <david@botton.com>]

I removed my modified Cairo bindings from Gnoga (Gnoga doesn't use Cairo internally) and have made it available as a separate archive if anyone would like to use it to generate pngs, pdfs and svgs. (Gnoga not required either).

The modification is simple, it just removes dependencies for GtkAda (cairo never required Gtk) and as per the example cairo_test you only need to link in -lcairo.

It is available in the Gnoga.com "marketplace" (although just a link there for now since I have not written the market place app yet).

I do not plan on using the Cairo bindings from AdaCore nor any of the AdaCore available bindings since finding this in the GNU/Debian distribution of gcc/ada.

/usr/share/doc/libgtkada2.24.4
[more before]
Comment: All the content available on libre.adacore.com is licensed
 under the terms of the pure GPL, despite the fact that AdaCore have
 not yet adjusted the licensing boilerplate in documentation.
 .
 This is stated for example at
 http://lists.adacore.com/pipermail/gtkada/2009-June/003789.html. The
 actual license is a decision of AdaCore. [more after]


If it is possible for a company to claim that they can change the licensing on their files (_even_ if the files say inside every one that they are GMGPL) _just_ because downloaded from a particular URL (or even if another file some place on a site) than this calls in to question not just the company's motivations but potential long term issues

 _EVEN FOR CUSTOMERS_

 since they will need to prove they have not updated or re-downloaded files from the repos or URLs under the virus hosts if their contracts lapse or do not have an anti-virus clause in the contract. (Remember that any one that received the exact same copies of the files from another "location" on the internet, say a customer or even a friend of a customer, would have the _legal right_ granted by the GMPLG to give you a copy with the GMGPL, etc.) 

I think it is important to make sure this becomes public because the long term damage to the entire free software community, not just Ada advocacy, is HUGE. If no one can trust the headers and specs to represent the license of a file when downloaded from source public repos, etc, how do you know that your copy is legal at all? This act, that an e-mail or simple statement at some place of questionable publicity changes all the licenses even though published on individual files, by AdaCore has potential to _tear down_ the entire Open Source world.

Does this mean that the FSF can one day just e-mail everyone that BTW everything you download from any FSF source is now no longer GPL or some new license that removes run time extensions after the fact that now requires proprietary software to open source their code if recompiled again on their own computers with the now e-mailed virus bomb? Does this mean that every library under the BSD or MIT license now require a notary public and contracts to insure that the website they were downloaded from them isn't a virus host?

AdaCore has the right to produce GPL only libraries and bindings. It is anti-Ada and doesn't help Free or Open Source either, but that is fine, their right.

What they don't have the right to do is spread false information and muddy the waters for their own corporate benefit.

Take this statement from the AdaCore website:
  (http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#other)

<<AdaCore has no control over these and cannot guarantee their quality or suitability for a particular purpose.>>

- Legitimate statement

<<Most important you should ascertain the license and IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) guarantees from its provider.

- Scare tactic (Using the term IPR is very anti-FSF... but whatever)

AdaCore offers top quality support and products. To harm Ada advocacy for corporate benefits, to harm Open Source efforts for corporate benefits, to use scare tactics to maintain a customer base, etc. These are _below_ the true quality of what AdaCore produces in code, the excellent top notch support offered, and dirties any one near Ada and AdaCore by extension.

If AdaCore wants to encumber and virus all their code do it, but don't muddy waters and use scare tactics that damage the Ada and Open Source communities.

The snooty attitude expressed by some should be replaced with a contrite attitude of service leaders who deserve respect from accomplishment that is more befitting the station AdaCore once had and should have for the hard work done on the compiler past and present.

David Botton