Win32Ada

Win32Ada

[BARDIN Marc]

    Hi all,
using win32ada binding patched i have always the same link error "ld: cannot
open -lwin32ada: no such file or directory".
- First a tried to compile and link tests program (of win32ada directory), i
had the same error. After i rename win32ada.a  as libwin32ada.a it was
better and i had some success (but some others compile & link errors..).
- But it was always impossible to link (same message error) a test program
in a other directory without no link to win32ada.

Any suggestion would be appreciated?
Thanks
Marc

Re: Win32Ada

[Henri]

COPY "win32ada.a" as "libwin32ada.a" in usr/lib

Re: Win32Ada

[Jerry van Dijk]

> using win32ada binding patched i have always the same link error "ld:
cannot
> open -lwin32ada: no such file or directory".
> - First a tried to compile and link tests program (of win32ada
directory), i
> had the same error. After i rename win32ada.a  as libwin32ada.a it was
> better and i had some success (but some others compile & link errors..).
> - But it was always impossible to link (same message error) a test
program
> in a other directory without no link to win32ada.
> 
> Any suggestion would be appreciated?

Read the instructions on my homepage _carefully_.


-- 
-- Jerry van Dijk | Leiden, Holland
-- Team Ada       | email: jdijk@acm.org
-- Ada & Win32: http://stad.dsl.nl/~jvandyk

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <01be0e3b$a980c340$5da65c8b@aptiva>,
  "Jerry van Dijk" <jvandyk@ibm.net> wrote:
> > using win32ada binding patched i have always the same
link error "ld:
> cannot
> > open -lwin32ada: no such file or directory".
> > - First a tried to compile and link tests program (of
win32ada
> directory), i
> > had the same error. After i rename win32ada.a  as
libwin32ada.a it was
> > better and i had some success (but some others compile
& link errors..).
> > - But it was always impossible to link (same message
error) a test
> program
> > in a other directory without no link to win32ada.
> >
> > Any suggestion would be appreciated?
>
> Read the instructions on my homepage _carefully_.


Note that a problem here is that the Win32 bindings are
copyrighted by Microsoft. This is very annoying, but is
a problem that has still not been resolved. I think the
copyright is somewhat dubious, since it could be viewed
as an attempt to copyright an interface dictated by
external requirements, something that has not been
supported by courts (e.g. in the Borland dispute).

But Intermetrics is taking the position that the copyright
is valid, which means that it is not possible to post and
distribute these bindings freely.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Dave Wood]

dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> Note that a problem here is that the Win32 bindings are
> copyrighted by Microsoft. This is very annoying, but is
> a problem that has still not been resolved. I think the
> copyright is somewhat dubious, since it could be viewed
> as an attempt to copyright an interface dictated by
> external requirements, something that has not been
> supported by courts (e.g. in the Borland dispute).
> 
> But Intermetrics is taking the position that the copyright
> is valid, which means that it is not possible to post and
> distribute these bindings freely.

More specifically, distribution requires the licensee to
also license the Microsoft SDK, which is why we are able
to bundle it with ObjectAda.

The curious thing is how this happened in the first place.
If I understand the history correctly, Intermetrics made
the bindings through direct government funding, so how
did we get into a situation where taxpayers paid for
this, as they did GNAT, and yet have to get Bill's
permission to use it?  There must be some interesting
story there somewhere.

In any case, the real problem with Win32Ada is that it
is stuck at NT 3.5.  This is why we also make available
an alternate binding that actually evolves with the API
(and has no funny Gatesian license restrictions.)  Then 
again there are other options like the CLAW binding.

-- Dave Wood, Aonix
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- http://www.aonix.com

Re: Win32Ada

[Dale Stanbrough]

dpw@cts.com wrote:

"In any case, the real problem with Win32Ada is that it
 is stuck at NT 3.5.  This is why we also make available
 an alternate binding that actually evolves with the API
 (and has no funny Gatesian license restrictions.)  Then 
 again there are other options like the CLAW binding."


Also we have totally open source products such as WINE, which 
provides for the Windows API for totally non Microsoft
environments such as Linux.

I wonder is someone could make an Ada binding to WINE, that
would just happen to have the lucky coincidence of working 
with Windows :-)

Dale

Re: Win32Ada

[dewar]

In article <364BE12F.F38A285C@cts.com>,
  dpw@cts.com wrote:
> If I understand the history correctly, Intermetrics made
> the bindings through direct government funding, so how
> did we get into a situation where taxpayers paid for
> this, as they did GNAT, and yet have to get Bill's
> permission to use it?  There must be some interesting
> story there somewhere.


Direct government funding does not guarantee data rights
to the public or the government. Indeed even in the case
of GNAT, which was only partially funded by the government,
there is absolutely nothing to stop ACT from deciding not
to distribute further versions, or to distribute further
versions with some proprietary components. Nothing that is,
except ACT's commitment to free software. The contract with
the government, long ago terminated, has nothing to say at
this point.

The original contract did however specify that GNAT be
released under the GPL, to ensure that at least the
versions that the government did help to fund would be
available. Apparently, in what I consider to be a serious
mistake, the government did not make the same requirement
for the Win32 bindings. It would of course have been
possible to generate clean room bindings free of Microsoft
control.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Jerry van Dijk]

dewar@gnat.com schreef in artikel <72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> available. Apparently, in what I consider to be a serious
> mistake, the government did not make the same requirement
> for the Win32 bindings. It would of course have been
> possible to generate clean room bindings free of Microsoft
> control.

Is there any reason why such a binding could not be produced again,
using the latest API ?

-- 
-- Jerry van Dijk | Leiden, Holland
-- Team Ada       | email: jdijk@acm.org
-- Ada & Win32: http://stad.dsl.nl/~jvandyk

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <01be0ff2$30b31ea0$96a55c8b@aptiva>,
  "Jerry van Dijk" <jvandyk@ibm.net> wrote:
> dewar@gnat.com schreef in artikel
<72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > available. Apparently, in what I consider to be a
serious
> > mistake, the government did not make the same
requirement
> > for the Win32 bindings. It would of course have been
> > possible to generate clean room bindings free of
Microsoft
> > control.
>
> Is there any reason why such a binding could not be
produced again,
> using the latest API ?


Of course there is no reason, it is simply a question of
who has the knowledge, skill, time and resources to make
this happen.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

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

Re: Win32Ada

[dennison]

In article <72kno3$q7f$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <01be0ff2$30b31ea0$96a55c8b@aptiva>,
>   "Jerry van Dijk" <jvandyk@ibm.net> wrote:
> > dewar@gnat.com schreef in artikel
> <72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > available. Apparently, in what I consider to be a
> serious
> > > mistake, the government did not make the same
> requirement
> > > for the Win32 bindings. It would of course have been
> > > possible to generate clean room bindings free of
> Microsoft
> > > control.
> >
> > Is there any reason why such a binding could not be
> produced again,
> > using the latest API ?
>
> Of course there is no reason, it is simply a question of
> who has the knowledge, skill, time and resources to make
> this happen.
>

Doesn't the "clean room" method actually require someone who has *no*
knowledge of the API (from Microsoft-derived sources) to do the work? I'd
think finding such people who would volunteer their time for this effort
would be difficult. That means it would have to be bankrolled by some company
or university, who would surely be sued by Microsoft anyway...

The AJPO was probably our last, best hope for making this happen.

--
T.E.D.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <72pd90$f3e$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <72kno3$q7f$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <01be0ff2$30b31ea0$96a55c8b@aptiva>,
> >   "Jerry van Dijk" <jvandyk@ibm.net> wrote:
> > > dewar@gnat.com schreef in artikel
> > <72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > > available. Apparently, in what I consider to be a
> > serious
> > > > mistake, the government did not make the same
> > requirement
> > > > for the Win32 bindings. It would of course have
been
> > > > possible to generate clean room bindings free of
> > Microsoft
> > > > control.
> > >
> > > Is there any reason why such a binding could not be
> > produced again,
> > > using the latest API ?
> >
> > Of course there is no reason, it is simply a question
of
> > who has the knowledge, skill, time and resources to
make
> > this happen.
> >
>
> Doesn't the "clean room" method actually require someone
who has *no*
> knowledge of the API (from Microsoft-derived sources) to
do the work? I'd
> think finding such people who would volunteer their time
for this effort
> would be difficult. That means it would have to be
bankrolled by some company
> or university, who would surely be sued by Microsoft
anyway...
>
> The AJPO was probably our last, best hope for making this
happen.



Please don't make such allegations without some basis in
reality. The entire Win32 environment has been cloned, e.g.
in the context of OS/2, and Microsoft is not in the
business of suing people who do this!

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <72pu4o$us2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:

> Please don't make such allegations without some basis in
> reality. The entire Win32 environment has been cloned, e.g.
> in the context of OS/2, and Microsoft is not in the
> business of suing people who do this!

Didn't IBM have certain legal rights in this area when they split
with Microsoft in the development effort ?  Both market "DOS".

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <1998Nov16.165814.1@eisner>,
  Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
> In article <72pu4o$us2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> > Please don't make such allegations without some basis
in
> > reality. The entire Win32 environment has been cloned,
e.g.
> > in the context of OS/2, and Microsoft is not in the
> > business of suing people who do this!
>
> Didn't IBM have certain legal rights in this area when
they split
> with Microsoft in the development effort ?  Both market
"DOS".


What has that got to do with the OS/2 Win32 bindings?

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <72qra5$p24$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:
> In article <1998Nov16.165814.1@eisner>,
>   Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
>> In article <72pu4o$us2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>> > Please don't make such allegations without some basis
> in
>> > reality. The entire Win32 environment has been cloned,
> e.g.
>> > in the context of OS/2, and Microsoft is not in the
>> > business of suing people who do this!
>>
>> Didn't IBM have certain legal rights in this area when
> they split
>> with Microsoft in the development effort ?  Both market
> "DOS".
> 
> 
> What has that got to do with the OS/2 Win32 bindings?

At the time of the split, IBM may have gotten some rights to
Windows bindings.  One would have to see the contract to be sure,
and one would have to engage in endless newsgroup wrangling to
still not settle whether that was legally significant.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Win32Ada

[dennison]

In article <72pu4o$us2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72pd90$f3e$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> > would be difficult. That means it would have to be
> bankrolled by some company
> > or university, who would surely be sued by Microsoft
> anyway...
>
> Please don't make such allegations without some basis in
> reality. The entire Win32 environment has been cloned, e.g.
> in the context of OS/2, and Microsoft is not in the
> business of suing people who do this!

Actually, Microsoft originally wrote OS/2 under contract from IBM, until
version 1.3. Supposedly Micrsoft stopped after that on IBM's insistence, but
they still have a cross-licensing agreement in place (see
http://www.teamos2.org/info/history.html for more information )

But in any event, if ACT wants to try to produce a liberated Win32 binding, I
certainly don't want to be seen as discouraging.

--
T.E.D.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Al Christians]

dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Please don't make such allegations without some basis in
> reality. The entire Win32 environment has been cloned, e.g.
> in the context of OS/2, and Microsoft is not in the
> business of suing people who do this!
> 

IBM put Win32 into OS/2 under a joint licensing deal with MS.
MS responded with Win32 1.1, which was not compatible with what 
IBM had in OS/2.  IBM then gave up on trying to keep up with MS's 
product evolution.  If it was too much for them, it may be hard 
to find a crew that's going to do it gratis for Ada.

Al

Re: Win32Ada

[dennison]

In article <72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewar@gnat.com wrote:

> Direct government funding does not guarantee data rights
> to the public or the government. Indeed even in the case
> of GNAT, which was only partially funded by the government,
> there is absolutely nothing to stop ACT from deciding not
> to distribute further versions, or to distribute further
> versions with some proprietary components. Nothing that is,
> except ACT's commitment to free software. The contract with
> the government, long ago terminated, has nothing to say at
> this point.

Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My understanding is that
GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with private components.

--
T.E.D.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dewar@gnat.com wrote:
>
> > Direct government funding does not guarantee data
rights
> > to the public or the government. Indeed even in the
case
> > of GNAT, which was only partially funded by the
government,
> > there is absolutely nothing to stop ACT from deciding
not
> > to distribute further versions, or to distribute
further
> > versions with some proprietary components. Nothing that
is,
> > except ACT's commitment to free software. The contract
with
> > the government, long ago terminated, has nothing to say
at
> > this point.
>
> Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My
understanding is that
> GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with
private components.



Once again, as has often been pointed out here, the GPL
has nothing at all to say about distribution, and the fact
that ACT continues to make public distributions of GNAT is
not dictated by the GPL!

As for components, you certainly cannot make modifications
to GPL'ed software without the result being GPL'ed, but if
the components are separate programs (GLADE, ASIS, and
other tools), there is absolutely no reason to make these
GPL'ed except that ACT has a policy of doing so!

Indeed a common method for proprietarizing things if that
is what you want to do, is to build separated components
that are proprietary, e.g. libraries, runtimes, tools etc.
This is not just theory, it has happened on more than one
occasion!


Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

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

Re: Win32Ada

[dennison]

In article <72pv17$vp8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> As for components, you certainly cannot make modifications
> to GPL'ed software without the result being GPL'ed, but if
> the components are separate programs (GLADE, ASIS, and
> other tools), there is absolutely no reason to make these
> GPL'ed except that ACT has a policy of doing so!

Ahhh. I misunderstood "components" of Gnat to mean actual parts of the Gnat
program, rather than completely separate programs that just happen to be
helpful while developing software with Gnat. I would have been more likely to
use the term "tool" there (as I notice you did above).

--
T.E.D.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Richard Kenner]

In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My understanding is that
>GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with private components.

Depends on what you mean by "private".  The GPL only imposes
limitations on what restrictions you can impose on copies of software
you choose to distribute, but it does not (and cannot) create any
obligation to distribute the software at all or to any specific person
or group of people.

Re: Win32Ada

[Al Christians]

Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
> In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
> >Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My understanding is that
> >GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with private components.
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "private".  The GPL only imposes
> limitations on what restrictions you can impose on copies of software
> you choose to distribute, but it does not (and cannot) create any
> obligation to distribute the software at all or to any specific person
> or group of people.

The GPL or some of the explanatory materials that were distributed with
it points out that there may be some conflicts between the GPL and other
contractual arrangements with other parties that bind particular users
of 
GPL'd items. The GPL does not bend on account of those arrangements, and 
it's up to the user of the GPL'd items to act according to the GPL or to 
refrain from using the GPL'd items.

If a GPL'd item or a derivative of a GPL'd item is created in a way that 
some other conflicting license or contract also applies, then whoever 
tried to satisfy both arrangements probably made a mistake.  Of course,
with something like Win32 bindings, the existence of a conflicting 
requirement would only be determined by direct contact with the
attorneys 
of MS, something we wouldn't wish on anyone, so the area is perhaps
inherently murky.        

Here's something that I don't understand about the GPL:  Does it allow
any restrictions on copying of GPL'd works?  Are any means by which I 
come into possession of a copy of GPL'd work legitimate, since copying 
is protected, or does the GPL allow the owner of a copy of a GPL'd 
work or its copyright holder to forbid me from copying it?  I suppose
that this might be germaine to discussions of Ada, given the sometimes
long lags between private and public releases of some GPL Ada tools.    
  

Al

Re: Win32Ada

[Richard Kenner]

In article <3654CC2B.63DD8D5D@easystreet.com> Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:
>Richard Kenner wrote:
>> Depends on what you mean by "private".  The GPL only imposes
>> limitations on what restrictions you can impose on copies of software
>> you choose to distribute, but it does not (and cannot) create any
>> obligation to distribute the software at all or to any specific person
>> or group of people.
>
>The GPL or some of the explanatory materials that were distributed with
>it points out that there may be some conflicts between the GPL and other
>contractual arrangements with other parties that bind particular users of 
>GPL'd items. The GPL does not bend on account of those arrangements, and 
>it's up to the user of the GPL'd items to act according to the GPL or to 
>refrain from using the GPL'd items.

That's true, but is totally irrelevant to above issue.

>If a GPL'd item or a derivative of a GPL'd item is created in a way that 
>some other conflicting license or contract also applies, then whoever 
>tried to satisfy both arrangements probably made a mistake.  Of course,
>with something like Win32 bindings, the existence of a conflicting 
>requirement would only be determined by direct contact with the
>attorneys of MS, something we wouldn't wish on anyone, so the area is perhaps
>inherently murky. 

I also don't follow this, since the Win32 bindings are not GPL'd.  They are
distributed along with GNAT on NT, but, as the GPL says, 

    In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
    with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
    a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
    the scope of this License.

>Here's something that I don't understand about the GPL:  Does it allow
>any restrictions on copying of GPL'd works?  

Only those specifically allowed by the GPL, which is that the copied
work must have precisely the same GPL restrictions on it.

>Are any means by which I come into possession of a copy of GPL'd work
>legitimate,

Not necessarily, since there is the possibility of a restriction by a
third party unknown to the original author or person who made the
copy.  This gets into a very gray area of the GPL.  The kind of thing
I'm talking about is a government deciding that some GPL'd encryption
software is "too secure" and forbidding export or a determination
that a patent of some third party has been infringed.  Paragraph 7 of
the GPL makes it clear that if somebody is aware of these
restrictions, they are not permitted to distribute the software at
all, but if they don't know about them you can easily have the sort of
situation you asked about: where a copy is made but that copy is not
legitimate.

Re: Win32Ada

[dennison]

In article <3654CC2B.63DD8D5D@easystreet.com>,
  Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> wrote:

> Here's something that I don't understand about the GPL:  Does it allow
> any restrictions on copying of GPL'd works?  Are any means by which I
> come into possession of a copy of GPL'd work legitimate, since copying
> is protected, or does the GPL allow the owner of a copy of a GPL'd
> work or its copyright holder to forbid me from copying it?  I suppose
> that this might be germaine to discussions of Ada, given the sometimes
> long lags between private and public releases of some GPL Ada tools.

Read the GPL yourself. From my reading, that would seem to be the case.
However, many methods of "acquiring" GPL'ed code might bring you into
conflict with your local and national penal codes. :-)

Lets give an example: Suppose we have a company named BDU who maintains a
really nifty GPL GUI builder. They continually make improvements, but only
publicly release these improvements at the pitifully slow rate of once a
year. Now suppose a crook who we will call CJ breaks into the offices of BDU
and copies the latest version of the GUI builder onto a floppy.

CJ is clearly guilty of breaking and entering. But does the GPL make it
illegal for him to possess that copy of the BDU GUI builder? Does the GPL
make it illegal for him to disseminate copies of the stolen version of the
GUI builder from his prison cell PC? No, and no.

How about civil court? Now let's suppose that BDU actually uses their
pitifuly slow release schedule to make themselves money. They give out
intermediate versions of their GUI builder to customers who pay BDU for
"support". Now word gets around on usenet about where to get CJ's stolen
intermediate version, and BDU looses half their "support" customers. Can they
sue CJ for the lost income?

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. :-)

--
T.E.D.

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

Software License Blather

[Al Christians]

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.

Al

Re: Software License Blather

[dewar]

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    

Re: Win32Ada

[Richard Kenner]

In article <734eo8$41v$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>Lets give an example: Suppose we have a company named BDU who maintains a
>really nifty GPL GUI builder. They continually make improvements, but only
>publicly release these improvements at the pitifully slow rate of once a
>year. Now suppose a crook who we will call CJ breaks into the offices of BDU
>and copies the latest version of the GUI builder onto a floppy.
>
>CJ is clearly guilty of breaking and entering. But does the GPL make it
>illegal for him to possess that copy of the BDU GUI builder? Does the GPL
>make it illegal for him to disseminate copies of the stolen version of the
>GUI builder from his prison cell PC? No, and no.

I'd agree the GPL doesn't make illegal, but I'd be very concerned
about a criminal charge of "possession of stolen property" against
anybody who knowingly accepted such material since it *was* stolen and
is a licenced and copyrighted work.

>How about civil court? Now let's suppose that BDU actually uses their
>pitifuly slow release schedule to make themselves money. They give out
>intermediate versions of their GUI builder to customers who pay BDU for
>"support". Now word gets around on usenet about where to get CJ's stolen
>intermediate version, and BDU looses half their "support" customers. Can they
>sue CJ for the lost income?

>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. :-)

Perhaps, but I'd say that in the hypothetical you give, BDU would have no
claim because they *are* distributing it to their customers who have no
legal prohibition against redistributing it.  The fact that it happened to
have been distributed due to a theft was incidental: BDU took no
"precautions" (and under the GPL indeed could taken none: that's the whole
point) against redistribution and thus would have no claim.

Note the parenthetical part of the above sentence is also a major issue.
By putting "support" in quotes above, you imply a situation where the
primary value being provided by BDU to its customers is access to the
latest version, not some actual service being provided (and you confirm
this by hypothesizing that half the customers would be lost if a copy got
out on the net).  But this is not a practical scenario because any of BDU's
customers could themselves offer the "support" at a lower price. So the
entire business model you hypothesize is impossible in the first place.

However, we can look at a similar hypothetical, where BDU hadn't released
the software *to anybody* because it wasn't finished yet.  Now suppose CJ
distributes *this* version, the origin of it gets muddled on the net, and the
reputation of BDU becomes one of a company that has badly broken software,
due to this software being available.

In that case, I *do* think that CJ would be liable for such damages because
BDU certainly took precautions to prevent that buggy version from getting
out.  However, the possibility of somebody in prison for breaking and
entering actually being able to *pay* such damages is low enough that this
entire scenario is vanishingly unlikely.

Re: Win32Ada

[dennison]

In article <73633i$aqs$1@news.nyu.edu>,
  kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> In article <734eo8$41v$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
> >Lets give an example: Suppose we have a company named BDU who maintains a
> >really nifty GPL GUI builder. They continually make improvements, but only
> >publicly release these improvements at the pitifully slow rate of once a
> >year. Now suppose a crook who we will call CJ breaks into the offices of BDU
> >and copies the latest version of the GUI builder onto a floppy.
> >
> >CJ is clearly guilty of breaking and entering. But does the GPL make it
> >illegal for him to possess that copy of the BDU GUI builder? Does the GPL
> >make it illegal for him to disseminate copies of the stolen version of the
> >GUI builder from his prison cell PC? No, and no.
>
> I'd agree the GPL doesn't make illegal, but I'd be very concerned
> about a criminal charge of "possession of stolen property" against
> anybody who knowingly accepted such material since it *was* stolen and
> is a licenced and copyrighted work.

I don't think that would be a problem. BDU was deprived of no physical
resource, and CJ was meerly copying the software from their hard-drives in
accordance with the software license. By the terms of the license, copying it
from their hard-drives is no different from copying it from their web server.

Perhaps the electrons on CJ's floppy were stolen from BDU's hard drives, but
it would be awfully tough to prove anyone further down the line recieved
those same stolen electrons from the BDU hard-drive.

--
T.E.D.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Richard Kenner]

In article <73c3so$rsi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>In article <73633i$aqs$1@news.nyu.edu>,
>  kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
>> I'd agree the GPL doesn't make illegal, but I'd be very concerned
>> about a criminal charge of "possession of stolen property" against
>> anybody who knowingly accepted such material since it *was* stolen and
>> is a licenced and copyrighted work.
>
>I don't think that would be a problem. BDU was deprived of no physical
>resource, and CJ was meerly copying the software from their hard-drives in
>accordance with the software license. By the terms of the license, copying it
>from their hard-drives is no different from copying it from their web server.

Most jurisdiction have the concept of stealing data, so it doesn't have to
be a physical object to be "stolen property".  And the fact that a legitimate
possessor of the data is permitted to copy it isn't relevant to CJ.

>Perhaps the electrons on CJ's floppy were stolen from BDU's hard drives, but
>it would be awfully tough to prove anyone further down the line recieved
>those same stolen electrons from the BDU hard-drive.

Well, proof is indeed a possible problem, but could be gotten around in
various ways.  For example, CJ might testify against all those he sold
copies to in exchange for a reduced sentence.

Re: Win32Ada

[dennison]

In article <732be5$dd3$1@news.nyu.edu>,
  kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dennison@telepath.com writes:
> >Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My understanding is that
> >GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with private components.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "private".  The GPL only imposes
> limitations on what restrictions you can impose on copies of software
> you choose to distribute, but it does not (and cannot) create any
> obligation to distribute the software at all or to any specific person
> or group of people.
>

Yes. I suppose the choice of that word was unfortunate. By "private" I meant
redistributed with souce unvailable and/or a restrictive commercial-type
license. Obviously you can refuse to give someone your source if you also
refuse to give them your binaries.

--
T.E.D.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <364BE12F.F38A285C@cts.com>,
  dpw@cts.com wrote:


> More specifically, distribution requires the licensee to
> also license the Microsoft SDK, which is why we are able
> to bundle it with ObjectAda.


The version that is generally available contains no such
permission. It requires that USE of the binding require
that you also use the SDK, but at least the version I have
access to says nothing about such distribution permission.
Can one assume that this is a special deal that Aonix
specifically made with Microsoft, or are you just assuming
that it is OK to distribute if you are sure users will be
properly licensed to use the bindings. On the face of it
the copyright is exactly that, a copyright that prohibits
copying.

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Dave Wood]

dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <364BE12F.F38A285C@cts.com>,
>   dpw@cts.com wrote:
> 
> > More specifically, distribution requires the licensee to
> > also license the Microsoft SDK, which is why we are able
> > to bundle it with ObjectAda.
> 
> The version that is generally available contains no such
> permission. It requires that USE of the binding require
> that you also use the SDK, but at least the version I have
> access to says nothing about such distribution permission.
> Can one assume that this is a special deal that Aonix
> specifically made with Microsoft, or are you just assuming
> that it is OK to distribute if you are sure users will be
> properly licensed to use the bindings. On the face of it
> the copyright is exactly that, a copyright that prohibits
> copying.

Yes, we have the necessary licensing arrangements
in place.

-- Dave Wood, Aonix
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- http://www.aonix.com

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <364E9C4A.E6F28A9F@cts.com>,
  dpw@cts.com wrote:

> Yes, we have the necessary licensing arrangements
> in place.
>
> -- Dave Wood, Aonix
> -- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
> -- http://www.aonix.com


The trouble is that this distribution and licensing does
not solve the problem, which is that these bindings are
hopelessly out of date, they cover only version 3.5, and
they also contain a number of errors. If we don't have a
freely distributable version which people can contribute
fixes and improvements to, then it is unlikely that any
one company will invest the necessary effort to bring
these bindings up to date. Aonix has gone the route of
providing a proprietary binding to solve this problem,
but that is hardly satsifactory in terms of the original
goals of the project.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

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

Re: Win32Ada

[dewar]

In article <364BE12F.F38A285C@cts.com>,
  dpw@cts.com wrote:
> The curious thing is how this happened in the first place
> If I understand the history correctly, Intermetrics made
> the bindings through direct government funding, so how
> did we get into a situation where taxpayers paid for
> this, as they did GNAT, and yet have to get Bill's
> permission to use it?  There must be some interesting
> story there somewhere.


By the way, the total amount of government money spent on
GNAT is far less than has been spent on other Ada
technologies that the government has directly and
indirectly funded, and most of those stay *completely*
proprietary. I don't think the fact that tax payers pay
for something has much to do with the tax payers getting
free use!

I also note that at this stage, even excluding the gcc back
end, and looking just at the Ada 95 component, the total
government funding on GNAT accounts for only a small
fraction (less than half) of the development cost of GNAT.
The remainder of the development costs have been funded
directly by Ada Core Technologies, which continues to
make substantial investments in continued development of
GNAT and related technologies.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Tom Moran]

>technologies that the government has directly and
>indirectly funded, and most of those stay *completely*
>proprietary
  I understand there was some wording in a recent bill that allows
Freedom of Information Act access to university research etc that used
to be disclosed only by the investigator or the granting agency.
Anbody know how that might affect software development in the future?

Re: Win32Ada

[Dave Wood]

dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> 
> In article <364BE12F.F38A285C@cts.com>,
>   dpw@cts.com wrote:
> > The curious thing is how this happened in the first place
> > If I understand the history correctly, Intermetrics made
> > the bindings through direct government funding, so how
> > did we get into a situation where taxpayers paid for
> > this, as they did GNAT, and yet have to get Bill's
> > permission to use it?  There must be some interesting
> > story there somewhere.

[Needless to say, nothing derogatory was intended
here - I was talking about the original GNAT 
investment, not whatever proprietary follow-on
has gone on since by ACT or anyone else.  By contrast, 
to my knowledge Win32Ada was 100% taxpayer funded, and 
IMHO ought to be a public resource.  Allowing rights
to an uninvolved 3rd party (Microsoft), seems 
completely nutty to me.]

> By the way, the total amount of government money spent on
> GNAT is far less than has been spent on other Ada
> technologies that the government has directly and
> indirectly funded, and most of those stay *completely*
> proprietary. I don't think the fact that tax payers pay
> for something has much to do with the tax payers getting
> free use!

I don't want to get into a protracted discussion 
on this since I have no special expertise in it
and you are doubtless one of the top-ranking
experts, but my gut instinct is that if something
is 100% funded by tax dollars, it ought to be 100%
in the control of the taxpayers or of their elected
representatives, at least if the creator of the
product has no intention to support and evolve it.  
I can see that an exception might be a flat-out 
grant where a priori there are no strings attached, 
such as for basic research.

I'm reminded of ALS, a big fat waste of tax money if
ever there was one (and how many of us had at least
some peripheral involvement with THAT mess?)  If I 
remember correctly, the government retained control 
of the resulting software and made it available on 
mag tape for something like $25, more or less cost 
of materials and shipping/handling.

Or, well, maybe I'm wrong.

-- Dave Wood, Aonix
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- http://www.aonix.com

Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr]

In article <364EA0F6.A66B888F@cts.com>,
  dpw@cts.com wrote:
> dewar@gnat.com wrote:
>
> [Needless to say, nothing derogatory was intended
> here - I was talking about the original GNAT
> investment, not whatever proprietary follow-on
> has gone on since by ACT or anyone else.  By contrast,
> to my knowledge Win32Ada was 100% taxpayer funded, and
> IMHO ought to be a public resource.  Allowing rights
> to an uninvolved 3rd party (Microsoft), seems completely
> nutty to me.]
>

The government often funds under agrements that will leave
entire proprietary rights in the hands of companies. Indeed
my understanding is that the academic edition of Object
Ada, in which the taxpayers invested directly more than
half what it spent on GNAT, is in this category. That is
by no means unusual, and by no means necessarily
inappropriate. It really depends on what the government
hoped to achieve.

In the case of GNAT, it was of the essence in terms of the
governments interest (to make a freely available high
quality Ada 95 compiler available for academic use) to
insist on the GPL licensing of the initial version (and
that the copyrights be assigned to the FSF).

In the case of the compiler work funded later as the
academic Ada compiler project, the government made a
specific decision that there was no requirement that it
should be freely distributed in OSS form.

I think what happened in the Intermetrics bindings cases
was that the government DID intend that the resulting
bindings be freely available, but clearly did not properly
write this into the contract as they did with GNAT. The
GNAT contract is quite remarkable in that it includes the
entire text of the GPL, and very specifically required the
use of the GPL, and the assignment of the copyright to the
Free Software Foundation.

This was in my view a significant error in the contractual
instruments for this work. The other major oversight was
the failure to provide for continued maintenance.

We are now investigating the possibility of a clean room
implementation of a thin binding to Win32 that will once
and for all clear up this unfortunate confusion. This is
incidentally exactly the sort of project that one would
hope can be successfully achieved using the OSS model. The
copyright on the Win32 bindings is particularly unfortunate
from this point of view, since it is one thing for
companies like Aonix and ACT to work out how they can
distribute the Win32 bindings in their current copyrighted
form, and quite another for volunteers to distribute
modified and corrected and improved versions.

By the way, I certainly did not take anything Dave said as
derogatory, I just wanted to make the GNAT funding
situation clear. We still run into people who think that
the government is directly supporting GNAT, a situation
that of course has not been true for four years. We did not
even seek such continued funding after the initial contract
ended, since we felt that the commercial support model was
more appropriate.

There is no doubt that there could not have been a GNAT
without the government's initial funding (indeed even with
that funding, the fate of GNAT was in the balance a few
times when the project was severely attacked by some
existing Ada vendors). I think it is quite a reasonable
model for the government to provide initial funding of this
type, especially if the result is a freely available
product. I do NOT think it is healthy for the government to
continue to provide such funding.

The future of GNAT depends on our ability to improve the
product and compete directly with the other Ada 95 vendors.
This competition is an important factor in the continued
development and improvement of GNAT (not to mention the
continued development and improvement of other vendors
products!)

> I don't want to get into a protracted discussion
> on this since I have no special expertise in it
> and you are doubtless one of the top-ranking
> experts, but my gut instinct is that if something
> is 100% funded by tax dollars, it ought to be 100%
> in the control of the taxpayers or of their elected
> representatives, at least if the creator of the
> product has no intention to support and evolve it.
> I can see that an exception might be a flat-out
> grant where a priori there are no strings attached,
> such as for basic research.

I don't think that's right. If the government funds
something at a 100% level, they have a choice as to who
ends up with the data rights. Clearly they will have to
spend more if they want the data rights to be freely
available to the public. Whether this is a good idea (to
spend this additional money) depends on the project. The
ATIP projects funded a few years ago, quite deliberately
allowed the data rights to remain with the vendors, and
most of these products remain proprietary (but not all,
for example the GNAT version for the MAC was distributed
freely, and is still freely available)

> I'm reminded of ALS, a big fat waste of tax money if
> ever there was one (and how many of us had at least
> some peripheral involvement with THAT mess?)  If I
> remember correctly, the government retained control
> of the resulting software and made it available on
> mag tape for something like $25, more or less cost
> of materials and shipping/handling.

ALS cost the government a LOT of money, something of the
order of 15-20 times the cost of GNAT. Interestingly there
was much less hue and cry from the other vendors, I think
simply because ALS was seen as a technical failure, and was
never successful in the market place. Part of the reason
for some of the vendors strongly opposing the GNAT project
was their prediction (accurate we believe :-) that GNAT
would be of sufficient quality to seriously compete with
their products.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

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

Re: Win32Ada

[Andi Kleen]

In article <72mlq3$9nd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:

> ALS cost the government a LOT of money, something of the
> order of 15-20 times the cost of GNAT. Interestingly there
> was much less hue and cry from the other vendors, I think
> simply because ALS was seen as a technical failure, and was
> never successful in the market place. Part of the reason
> for some of the vendors strongly opposing the GNAT project
> was their prediction (accurate we believe :-) that GNAT
> would be of sufficient quality to seriously compete with
> their products.

Sorry for a stupid question, but..

What exactly is ALS ? 


-Andi

Re: Win32Ada

[Al Christians]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> Sorry for a stupid question, but..
> 
> What exactly is ALS ?
> 

In the spirit of all the replies to "...  ADA?"

Lou Gehrig's Disease or Advanced Logistics System.

Al