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: 103376,2c7b0b777188b7c4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!infeed-1.proxad.net!news10-e.free.fr!not-for-mail Sender: sam@willow.rfc1149.net From: Samuel Tardieu Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades References: <1128499462.850353.146890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87ek6zom2h.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> Date: 25 Oct 2005 17:44:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87ek697ga5.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Leafnode-NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:660:330f:f810:211:2fff:fea6:3aa1 Organization: Guest of ProXad - France NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Oct 2005 17:45:03 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.56.47.149 X-Trace: 1130255103 news10-e.free.fr 11144 81.56.47.149:54952 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5926 Date: 2005-10-25T17:45:03+02:00 List-Id: >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Creem 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