Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

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

"Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:

> Michael Bode wrote:
> > I'd be one, let's say somewhere below 1000ￜ for the GPL Edition with
> > GMGPL licensing. In fact I asked AdaCore for such a beast. Doesn't
> > exist an probably never will.
> 
> Just trying to find some vaguely relevant post to hang this on...    :-)
> 
> 
> A fair amount of the discussion in this thread was covered when
> AdaCore first announced GNAT GPL 2005, and there was much wailing and
> gnashing of teeth at that time.

Indeed. At least as far as GNAT GPL is concerned.

> I thought a lot about this back then, and came to a few realizations
> about developing Ada software with GNAT GPL 200x and trying to make
> money selling fully GPLed software, which were posted in some form
> back then, but let me try to summarize them here:
> 
> 1) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it, either over the
> internet or in a shrinkwrapped box.  Okay, so what's the problem?
> You're making money.  Unless it's some trivial program, or your target
> market is developers, _nobody_cares_ that the source code is
> available.  Put it on the CD or DVD--the accountant who bought your
> tax prep program isn't going to rebuild the executables.  Worse, it's
> in Ada, who's going to set up an Ada development environment to
> rebuild it?  :-)

Completely right. But: There is also the case when the customer wants
the developer(s) to sign an NDA. Usually (happened too me) these
customers are deeply uneasy with the GPL around. They fear (and I
don't even know wether they are right) that they cannot bind the
developers into not disclosing the code written under contract, and
they fear that contact with GPL code "frees" their own code with all
their methods and concepts. They are not sure and in a competitive
situation (meaining multiple bidders) that means they don't touch the
offer where they are not sure.

> 
> 2) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it to customers with
> whom you establish an ongoing support relationship.  If it's a
> non-technical product, see (1).  If it's technical and they are
> interested in source code, verbally _request_ that they not
> redistribute the distribution, e.g., AdaCore customers.
> Alternatively, verbally notify them that if they redistribute the
> source you will not renew their support contract, i.e., Red Hat
> Enterprise customers. Doing this IS legal! I requested clarification
> directly from the FSF and got this response from the FSF Licensing
> Team:
> 
> "There is nothing in the license to prevent this; in fact, Red Hat does
> exactly this with customers of their support services. This is not
> quite the same thing as placing restrictions on the software -- after
> all, the customers are still legally able to exercise all their rights
> under the GPL. There is little we can do to prevent them from putting
> themselves in that position."


On can also just deliver mangled code to the customer with stripped
comments and w/o documentation. One can do all that, but actually it's
bending the spirit of GPL and obeying the letter only.

Note that now I'm talking about libraries, not about GPL Gnat.

Personally I'd prefer to have LGPL or GMGPL on libraries and release
substantial portions of my reusable code into the community when and
where possible and also being able to write closed source when the
necessity arises (meaning that I can ensure the customer that I won't
disclose his modules to third parties) instead of not releasing
anything to the community and giving compilable but otherwise unusable
code to the customer.

But as Michael Bode pointed out, GPL vs LGPL/GMGPL is not the real
question here. The issue at hand is somewhat mor complicated,
specifically finding out, what certain licenses are and since when
:-).

> The FSF clearly does not like this practice, but it is legal,
> because the customer can still exercise all aspects of the GPL, they
> just may lose the ability to get support from you the developer.  A
> business cannot be forced to provide or extend a support contract to
> someone it doesn't want to.
> 
> Hope this muddies the waters.

It does.

Regards -- Markus