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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,33ec2881cc3ecf36 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: ada < - > java bindings wanted Date: 1999/08/21 Message-ID: <7pmbd7$kev$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 515474253 References: <37BD0169.B49F73A5@acenet.com.au> <7pjm8u$on1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7pjovd$qo8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.72.82.184 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Aug 21 14:00:10 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-08-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7pjovd$qo8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison 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.