From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,35ce1c7836290812
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: SGI GNAT Question? (Long)
Date: 1999/03/05
Message-ID: <7bpjoe$eia$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 451690267
References: <7bflkk$78i$1@news.ro.com> <7bhlb2$h4n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <7bia5u$3lt$1@news.ro.com> <7bkasm$rlt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <36DE8585.2B5E6A5C@spam.com> <7bmbr5$j3p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <36DFA6FB.D3A2AD84@spam.com> <7bos1q$ogq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <7bp6pv$2mm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x10.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 05 21:53:23 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-03-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7bp6pv$2mm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <7bos1q$ogq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dewar@gnat.com wrote:
>
> >   Similarly, if ACT decided that future versions of the
> >   ACT copyrighted components of GNAT were to be
> >   released in fully proprietary form, that would be
> >   perfectly consistent. Giving someone a license to
> >   your copyrighted creation does not place limitations
> >   on YOU, the author!
>
> Whoa! I have to admit I missed that one entirely. I guess
> its a good thing I'm an engineer instead of a laywer.

But if you "missed that one entirely", it means you have
some strange peculiar view of the GPL (a not uncommon
phenomenon :-)

If I own a program, and I license you to use it, it is
very hard for me to see why you think that the license
I give to you would stop me from doing what I like with
the program. I am not transferring the rights in the
program to you, just licensing it.

When you get a licensed product from Microsoft, you know
perfectly well that they still own the program and can do
anything they like with it.

Well there is *nothing* unusual about the GPL in this
regard, it is simply a limited license giving the recipient
of the license certain limited rights to use the
copyrighted works. As with any license of this kind,
certain uses are permitted, and certain ones are forbidden.

Yes, the GPL is certainly more liberal in what it lets you
do than Microsoft's license, but that does not affect the
basic structure of the situation from a legal point of
view.

I often find that people, including attorneys sometimes,
have strange ideas about the GPL. Once they realize that
it is just a normal situation of a copyrighted work being
distributed under license it is much easier to understand.

Of course they can still be a bit puzzled with a license
whose language seems more intent on telling you all the
things you *can* do, rather than working hard to tell you
all the things you *cannot* do, and they may be even more
surprised if you tell them you paid nothing for the
license, but that is commercial rather than legal
surprise :-)

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