Re: Software License Blather

[dewar@gnat.com]

In article <3655D794.82E85B02@easystreet.com>,
  Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> wrote:
> dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, you can always sue someone. But does the GPL
protect CJ in court from
> > this charge? That's a bit foggy. The answer probably
depends on the relative
> > quality of their laywers. :-)
> >
>
> Sad but true, and 'quality of lawyers' might be taken by
most to be
> an oxymoron.  These kinds of issues sometimes go from
abstract
> conjecture to serious business quickly.  Out here in
Oregon, we've got
> someone who went to jail (ie jail, as in prison) for
commercial
> theft of software from his employer.  The software he
'stole' from his
> employer was never taken off the employer's premises, and
the only copy
> found in the possession of the thief was on the
employer's computer at
> the employer's facility.
>
> One of the ways these puzzles are live for me is that me
and my clients
> are typically bound by plenty of third party agreements.
Say that my
> client spends $million on software licenses from
BIGBIGCO. They hire me
> to help them use it, and make me sign a contract that
gives me access to
> BIGBIGCO's products, but I have to agree to do it by
their rules,
> which are that I'm doing work for hire for BIGBIGCO.
Fine, so far.
>
> Suppose I look at some piece of code in BIGBIGCO's system
written
> for Robert Dewar's old  Cobol compiler and decide that
Robert is doing
> much better these days and I rewrite it in Ada.  I give
the new version
> to my client.  This is ok, because according to all the
legal
> mumbo-jumbo we are tied up with,  BIGBIGCO really owns my
code, I know
> that, the client is licensed to use it, and all is happy.
Even if this
> is under GPL because I've used GPL code, this is ok,
because both me and
> client are bound to follow GPL if we distribute it
further, which we
> can't, so we won't.
>
> But the reason I stay away from GPL, is that client has
employees, and
> if one of them comes into possession of my GPL'd code and
carries it
> to another company,  we've got a lifetime of work for
seven lawyers
> figuring out how much I owe to whom for setting this mess
up.  And about
> the same if BIGBIGCO gets a copy of my code that is
legally a work for
> hire for them and then distributes it elsewhere without
following GPL.
>
> Fortunately, LGPL and similar are becoming much more
common than GPL,
> and these aren't quite as scary. So, sincere thanks to
ACT and everyone
> else who uses LGPL or anything like it, so that GPL
doesn't put me into
> the fog between too many lawyers.




There is so much misinformation in the above post that I
can't even think where to begin, so I think I won't. I
will just say that GNAT does not use the LGPL, as I think
most people who have studied this issue at all are aware.

Anyway, if anyone has any concerns about the GPL with
respect to using GNAT, please contact Ada Core Technologies
and we will be happy to answer your questions. It is our
experience that when people understand the situation, they
realize that the way in which GNAT is licensed is wholly
advantageous for users, and is not a problem at all.

It is true there is a lot of misinformation traveling
around, and this misinformation does occasionally cause
problems. Just be sure that when you are considering
licensing issues (for any license, not just the GPL, or the
ACT modified GPL), be sure to talk to people who know what
they are talking about!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own