Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net>]

>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes:

Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers
Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when
Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused
Jeff> and upset.

It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy
completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert
Dewar (6 May 1999):

"In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine
 legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x,
 possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that
 allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed
 it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an
 incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY
 this split model.
 
 One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea
 (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
 licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff),
 but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have
 heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full
 access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing
 proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate
 situation :-)"

Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff".

Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one
anymore.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam