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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!bcklog1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:18:29 -0500 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151422118.772405.307200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:18:37 +0200 Message-ID: <87ac7ypaaa.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:xEvvHMnB9mOw6yxu5saQy9JJGVk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.235.244.104 X-Trace: sv3-9dVqknyquf+IAcNghC+KA1nKR/5bZIi8QmL/LVVUmwhm+r8ecYgiP1peVbfcTL5QW+/jYr8gkbkhd+X!ReiiszkGBr1HpA4QbAi6XdEQW5rgVp5ALHfsLpE2lXRioWV7IJeLbi0ZE9eWXf6tkQPpwiDyyyA= X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5132 Date: 2006-06-27T23:18:37+02:00 List-Id: Dr. Adrian Wrigley writes: > I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting > apparent changes in licensing conditions. The issues raised here > are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees > and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences. Yes :( But it also applies to non-free EULAs, or any kind of license whatsoever. It even applies to the movie I purchased on DVD a couple of days ago. The lawyers are after us! Run! Run! > Under English law (and presumably most other places), signed statements > are not required to form a contract. In particular, if the parties > behaved and believed that there is a contract then one exists. > Evidence such as files, ftp sites, emails etc. can help support > the claim that a contract existed. Surely the behaviour of > the authors and users backs the claim that licences were granted? > Signatures on bits of paper might help, but still don't provide > a full guarantee. IANAL. A license is not the same as a contract. A contract has to have measurable obligations for both parties; a license is only a grant of rights to the licensee, possibly without compensation. No compensation, no contract, either written or implied. > As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable, > non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence. The GMGPL terms > add to this, but don't change these basic features. Right. That's why I think Debian is in the clear as regards the older versions of AdaCore's software that are presently in the distribution. > I am at a loss to understand what basis there is for revoking the > licences already issued. As a party to the licence > contract between myself and the authors, I feel aggrieved. > I have kept to my side of the bargain. I'm not convinced they > have kept to theirs. Since they received no compensation for the software, there is no bargain, no contract, ergo they have no obligations. > Some people here will want a formal opinion. I don't feel I have > need or resources for a professional view myself. But I am being > made extremely wary of exposing myself to the possible legal > risks involved in *any* substantive business project involving > these software components. The way these licences seem to be > being revoked, changed or withdrawn, without adequate explanation > is certainly a breach of the implied social "contract" created > when software is published. Yes, but that applies to all licenses, even non-free licenses from well-known vendors. The only thing that can provide assurances is a contract. -- Ludovic Brenta.