comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: ada < - > java bindings wanted
Date: 1999/08/21
Date: 1999-08-21T00:00:00+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7pmbd7$kev$1@nnrp1.deja.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7pjovd$qo8$1@nnrp1.deja.com

In article <7pjovd$qo8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:

> I don't think meerly reading the OpenSource definition (
> http://www.opensource.org/osd.html ) is enough, as to my mind
> clause 9
> disqualifies the GPL, yet it is listed as being approved (

Well I guess your mind doesn't read quite carefully enough in
this case :-)

Here is clause 9:

9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.

      The license must not place restrictions on other software
      that is distributed along with the licensed software. For
      example, the license must not insist that all other
      programs distributed on the same medium must be
      open-source software.

The other software here is about other programs that have
nothing to do with the licensed software. For example, if the
GPL said that no GPL'ed program may be distributed on the
same CD ROM as a non-free program, then it would indeed run
afoul of clause 9.

If you use a GPL'ed library in an application, then the
application *is* the licensed software, since the GPL creates
a license for this software. That's perfectly acceptable to the
notions of open source, and of course the GPL is historically
the quintessential open souce licenses. In general all free
software licenses meet the requirements for OSI certification,
the contrary is definitely not true (there is OSI certified
software that considerably restricts your freedomes, and so
is not considered free software). As with any software licenses
for copyrighted materials, you need to read the license
carefully to ensure that your use is consistent with your
license.

It is definitely NOT the case that open source means you can
do anything you like with the software. Indeed some open source
licenses give ownership of any modifications to the original
copyright holder, and require that you send such modifications
to them. Such conditions may or may not be acceptable to you,
they certainly disqualify software as free.

The fundamental issue with free software is that you personally
can do anything you like with the software for your own use
without any kind of restrictions at all, and that you can pass
on either the original or modified software to anyone. In the
case of the GPL, this passing on must preserve the freedom for
the recipient.

By the way, if you have trouble understanding any of the
conditions in the quoted document, be sure to read the
rationale sections. For this particular clause, the example
should make things crystal clear, but where that is not the
case, the rationale will usually clarify matters.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.




  parent reply	other threads:[~1999-08-21  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1999-08-20  0:00 ada < - > java bindings wanted Geoff Bull
1999-08-20  0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-20  0:00   ` Ted Dennison
1999-08-20  0:00     ` Florian Weimer
1999-08-21  0:00     ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1999-08-21  0:00   ` Simon Wright
1999-08-22  0:00     ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-22  0:00   ` Geoff Bull
1999-08-21  0:00     ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-21  0:00     ` Robert Dewar
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1999-08-12  0:00 Constantine A. Sismanidis
1999-08-12  0:00 ` David Botton
1999-08-12  0:00 ` Jim White
1999-08-12  0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-08-12  0:00   ` Tucker Taft
1999-08-14  0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-12  0:00 Constantine A. Sismanidis
1999-08-12  0:00 ` Stanley R. Allen
1999-08-13  0:00 ` Ted Dennison
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox