Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Carroll, Andrew]

>> Georg quoted
>> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what
the
>>  headers say.

If this were true then why can't "a person" just change the headers to
say whatever they want the headers to say?

Also, if this the common understanding then why is this understanding
not written in the "free software" licensing headers (for any level of
"General Purpose")?

Sounds to me like the issue isn't what the headers say/contain or
complying with the headers.  The problem is in the fact that there's
really no regulation of what the headers say or who complies or doesn't.

Compare this issue with say the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.
If my right to free speech was just a superficial header (had no
regulation) then the right to free speech I claim could be contended
either way with no one having a basis for their argument other than a
superficial header that was never enforced or regulated.

Just my two cents worth.

Andrew

  

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes:

>>> Georg quoted
>>> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what
> the
>>>  headers say.
>
> If this were true then why can't "a person" just change the headers to
> say whatever they want the headers to say?
>
> Also, if this the common understanding then why is this understanding
> not written in the "free software" licensing headers (for any level of
> "General Purpose")?
>
> Sounds to me like the issue isn't what the headers say/contain or
> complying with the headers.  The problem is in the fact that there's
> really no regulation of what the headers say or who complies or doesn't.

No, the issue is the one you described in your first sentence.  The
headers or COPYING file have no legal force, precisely because you
cannot prove that they apply to the software, and that they were
written by the author of the software.  So, what Robert Dewar said is:
to be sure, you must ask the author.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> No, the issue is the one you described in your first sentence.  The
> headers or COPYING file have no legal force, precisely because you
> cannot prove that they apply to the software, and that they were
> written by the author of the software.  So, what Robert Dewar said is:
> to be sure, you must ask the author.

But can you rely on the author? Perhaps he is drunk at the time he
answers or it's really the cleaning woman using his/her computer
(illegally of course). 

I mean -- where should all that end? 

It is hardly believable that the author(s) (say ACT ...) distributed
the libraries in question _years_ without aver noticing those
copyright headers and COPYING files. If they did and left them in
place (or well, did them put there themselves), that would constitute
a declaration of intent, which IMHO seems mor convincing than some old
e-mail I get from adacore.com: After all, E-Mail headers can be
forged. But years of bootleg copies of GtkAda with copyright headers
inserted without the knowledge of ACT, distributed even from the ACT
site. 

Ridiculous.

Regards -- Markus

Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
servers.  In summary:

- All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
  headers say.

- This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
  source-only form.

- They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
  I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.

- They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
  (they are not required to sign anything, of course).

As you all know, Gentoo has switched to the pure GPL for all Ada
libraries, in accordance with these statements.  IANAL but this seems
to be the only legal route, so Debian will follow suit and switch to
the pure GPL for future versions of the libraries.

ASIS-for-GNAT is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation.
Theoretically, I could ask the FSF for a GMGPL license, and maybe get
the sources from gnat-asis.sourceforge.net, but that's unlikely to
work with GCC 4.1 without major work.  So, switch to pure GPL.

AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee.  Only source is
AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.

AWS was written by Dmitryi Anisimkov and Pascal Obry.  Neither of them
being an AdaCore employee (at least AFAIK), there may be a way to
acquire a GMGPL license from them.  They may also decide to fork the
project on a new repository.  Pascal's site [1] has a download page
that points to AdaCore's web site.  In the mean time, AdaCore is the
only source, so switch to pure GPL.

Florist was written by Florida State University; it is possible to get
a version ported to GCC 4.1 from http://gnat-florist.sourceforge.net,
so I'll do that.  GMGPL.

GLADE was written jointly by AdaCore, the ENST, A. Strohmeier, T. Wolf
and J. Kienzle.  Only source is AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.

GtkAda was written by Emmanuel Briot, Joel Brobecker, Arnaud Charlet,
and Nicolas Setton, who are all AdaCore employees.  Only source is
AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.

libgnat is GMGPL, since we obtained it from the FSF's repository as
part of GCC 4.1.

PolyORB is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation.  The situation is
exactly the same as with ASIS: the FSF doesn't seem to be aware of
PolyORB, the only place to get it from is AdaCore, and that's pure
GPL.  PolyORB has a home page [2], but the download link points to
AdaCore.  (that doesn't matter for now, since Debian does not provide
PolyORB).

Templates_Parser, a library that is incorporated into both AWS and
GPS, is copyright (c) AdaCore.  It seems that the author, Pascal Obry,
has assigned copyright to them.  If that's untrue (and the headers are
in error), then my remarks on AWS apply to Templates_Parser, too.
(Debian includes Templates_Parser as part of AWS and GPS, but not as a
separate package).

XML/Ada was written by Emmanuel Briot (an AdaCore employee),
Christophe Baillon and Martin Krischik.  Only source is AdaCore, so
switch to pure GPL.

AdaCore, or AdaCore employees, are authors of AUnit, GLADE, GtkAda,
and XML/Ada.  They might volunteer a GMGPL version of their work, but
I'm not going to ask them for one.

Since GtkAda has been mentioned more than any other library, I'd like
to point out that Debian already includes two alternatives:

- AdaBindX [3], a binding to X11 and LessTif by Hans-Frieder Vogt
  which is under GMGPL.  X11 is under X11 (MIT) license, and
  LessTif[4] is under LGPL.  But AdaBindX has not been updated since
  2000, and is not portable.  And not as good-looking as GTK+.
  According to Debian's Popularity Contest [5], this package has zero
  users, so I am tempted to drop it from Etch.  Speak up if you want
  me to keep it.

- TASH, the Tcl Ada SHell [6], includes a binding to Tk; it is
  available as a Debian package, under GMGPL, from Ada-France [7] and
  AdaWorld [8].  TASH is portable, but has not been updated since
  2003.

[1] http://www.obry.net
[2] http://polyorb.objectweb.org/
[3] http://home.arcor.de/hfvogt/programming.html
[4] http://www.lesstif.org/
[5] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=libadabindx
[6] http://www.adatcl.com/
[7] http://www.ada-france.org/debian/
[8] http://www.adaworld.com/debian/

Thoughts, comments, offers to help?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> servers.  In summary:
> 
(snip)

> [1] http://www.obry.net
> [2] http://polyorb.objectweb.org/
> [3] http://home.arcor.de/hfvogt/programming.html
> [4] http://www.lesstif.org/
> [5] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=libadabindx
> [6] http://www.adatcl.com/
> [7] http://www.ada-france.org/debian/
> [8] http://www.adaworld.com/debian/
> 
> Thoughts, comments, offers to help?

Thanks for the valuable summary of the situation. I don't have anything
particular to offer, except that I'm now using a debian derivative for my
office and home computers, so I closely follow these matters. I am also
interested in the Ada GPL community, so I'd like to volunteer in the
future, time permitting. 

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> servers.  In summary:

Ah, we'll see. Obviously the letter to me is still in transit.

> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
>   headers say.

> - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
>   source-only form.

So, if I get the source from ACT CVS it's GPL and if I get it from one
of the Archives somehwere out there, it has GMGPL. I'm talking GtkAda
2.2.1 and GtkAda 1.x specifically where there is strong indication
that it has been distributed as GMGPL (by whomever ...).

> - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
>   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.

Please. Also It would be useful to ask AdaCore to document the
provenience of the sources they distribute: At which distribution
points the got the source, what are their assurances that they are
allowed to distribute the sources under GPL and so on :-). What their
baseline version is (that is from which version on they started to
"contribute" to the code base).

> - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
>   (they are not required to sign anything, of course).

I think they are required to say very clearly on which basis they
think they have the right to distribute the software they haven't
completely written themselves (which applies to most from libre2
AFAIS).

> As you all know, Gentoo has switched to the pure GPL for all Ada
> libraries, in accordance with these statements.  

> IANAL but this seems to be the only legal route, so Debian will
> follow suit and switch to the pure GPL for future versions of the
> libraries.


> ASIS-for-GNAT is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation.
> Theoretically, I could ask the FSF for a GMGPL license, and maybe get
> the sources from gnat-asis.sourceforge.net, but that's unlikely to
> work with GCC 4.1 without major work.  So, switch to pure GPL.

As far ASIS is concerned: I consider that to belong to the tool
sector, so GPL is no problem. ASIS is, in a sense an extension of
GNAT. I did not grok all of you statement here, though: What exactly
is the situation wrt to ASIS: 

> AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee.  Only source is
> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.

Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer:
In my eyes GPL is OK here.

> AWS was written by Dmitryi Anisimkov and Pascal Obry.  Neither of them
> being an AdaCore employee (at least AFAIK), there may be a way to
> acquire a GMGPL license from them.  They may also decide to fork the
> project on a new repository.  Pascal's site [1] has a download page
> that points to AdaCore's web site.  In the mean time, AdaCore is the
> only source, so switch to pure GPL.

Older Versions where GMGPL AFAIK. We should ask the authors for either
a GMGPL version (from their archives) or at least for the last GMGPL
version.

> Florist was written by Florida State University; it is possible to get
> a version ported to GCC 4.1 from http://gnat-florist.sourceforge.net,
> so I'll do that.  GMGPL.

This is, I think the same version as 3.15p as also available from
Baker's site. Since ACT did hardly anything with their GPLed florist
apart from removing the linking exception and adding a copyright
statement of their own, I'd judge that version still good (after all:
POSIC hasn't changed, it's mostly a question how it will build on
various platforms).

> GLADE was written jointly by AdaCore, the ENST, A. Strohmeier, T. Wolf
> and J. Kienzle.  Only source is AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.

I agree as far as the tools themselves are concerned. But I can get a
version of glade-3.15p from non-ACT servers and (if we really want to
start splitting hair then: here) I can see linking exceptions in a
number of files. Perhaps these are exactly the runtime that gets
linked to client and server. This aspect is exactly why I'd really
want to know more about the copyright of single files in that whole
mess.


> GtkAda was written by Emmanuel Briot, Joel Brobecker, Arnaud Charlet,
> and Nicolas Setton, who are all AdaCore employees.  Only source is
> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.

So there has never been a GMGPL version? Never ever? I find that
odd. I suppose you can now never get Emmanuel Briot, Joel
Brobecker, Arnaud Charlet to admit that there was ever a GMGPL
version?

As far as past versions are concerned, I pull the following Texts from
my archive, which have accomanied GtkAda on libre (the old one) for
some time:

  Version 1.3: This package is distributed under the GPL license,
  slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with
  this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library
  itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to
  do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda.

  Version 2.0.0: This package is distributed under the GPL license,
  slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with
  this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library
  itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to
  do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda.

  Version 2.2.1: This package is distributed under the GPL license,
  slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with
  this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library
  itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to
  do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda.

  Version 2.4.0: This package is distributed under the GPL license,
  slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with
  this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library
  itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to
  do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda.


I suppose if I just get the version of GtkAda from my archive, I'll be
covered by GMGPL, or what? Or if I get this one:
http://www.adapower.net/libre/gtkada/GtkAda-2.0.0.tgz

ACT didn't even bother to change the source of 2.4.0 distributed from
libre2. The just somehow lost (not even substituted) the license
notice when they started to mirror libre.act-europe.fr.

All this has a positively Orwellian touch (especially if I factor in
the now well known Robert Dewar quote): Changing the past
retroactively.



> libgnat is GMGPL, since we obtained it from the FSF's repository as
> part of GCC 4.1.

Yep.

> PolyORB is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation.  The situation is
> exactly the same as with ASIS: the FSF doesn't seem to be aware of
> PolyORB, the only place to get it from is AdaCore, and that's pure
> GPL.  PolyORB has a home page [2], but the download link points to
> AdaCore.  (that doesn't matter for now, since Debian does not provide
> PolyORB).

polyorb/README

   -- As a special exception,  if other files  instantiate  generics from this --
   -- unit, or you link  this unit with other files  to produce an executable, --
   -- this  unit  does not  by itself cause  the resulting  executable  to  b  --

This even in the version obtained from ACT.

Other version can be gotten from FTP-Servers /= ACT's. 

If I go to http://polyorb.objectweb.org I find "As a special
exception, if other files instantiate generics from this ..." and 

"PolyORB 1.3r (2005-06-15) (...) This is the latest release of
PolyORB.  Release is a snapshot of current research work on middleware
architecture carried out by the ENST and the LIP6-SRC. (...) Note:
this snapshot is distributed on Libre's page."

It seems the copyright somehow gets lost in between objectweb.org and
ACT. I find it hardly credible that the agreement (of whatever kind)
between objectweb and ACT is, that ACT distributes under "pure
GPL". I'd suggest that the community ask objectweb for either
subversion access or the last GMGPL snapshot.


> Templates_Parser, a library that is incorporated into both AWS and
> GPS, is copyright (c) AdaCore.  It seems that the author, Pascal Obry,
> has assigned copyright to them.  If that's untrue (and the headers are
> in error), 

ACT is in the habit of rewriting headers.

> then my remarks on AWS apply to Templates_Parser, too.  (Debian
> includes Templates_Parser as part of AWS and GPS, but not as a
> separate package).


> XML/Ada was written by Emmanuel Briot (an AdaCore employee), ...
> Christophe Baillon and Martin Krischik.  Only source is AdaCore, so
> switch to pure GPL.

From the xmlada README: 

  "As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from ..."

ACT might be in their rights to strip the linking exception from all
source they distribute from their site. But since at least a part of
that software got distributed under different licenses earlier, I
doubt they can take back the linking eception on all that copies
floating around on various backup media and ftp servers. Not
retroactively.

That also applies to all the other packages where the copyright is now
being stripped retroactivly.

> AdaCore, or AdaCore employees, are authors of AUnit, GLADE, GtkAda,
> and XML/Ada.  They might volunteer a GMGPL version of their work, but
> I'm not going to ask them for one.

I understand that. Is BTW, anybody here who's intrested in
constituting a GMGPL baseline of some core libraries?


> Since GtkAda has been mentioned more than any other library, I'd like
> to point out that Debian already includes two alternatives:

Ludovico. I understand that. But: Gtk+ has been LGPL for very good
reasons and part of the success of Gnome is based on that. In my
opinion the future on Unix/Linux is Gtk+/Pango/Cairo. And it comes as
a special bonus that these libs are portable. Everything else is
probably good to hack some tool now, but not to build something that
can survive in for the next 10 years. 

I'm not talking about a single program but about a code base. As I
very small example, I've developed (among other things) a flowing
label widget (Text in label flows on resizing) for GtkAda. I wouldn't
see any sense in developing (and releasing to the community)
infrastructure of that kind for what I consider a niche solution.

> - AdaBindX [3], a binding to X11 and LessTif by Hans-Frieder Vogt
>   which is under GMGPL.  X11 is under X11 (MIT) license, and
>   LessTif[4] is under LGPL.  But AdaBindX has not been updated since
>   2000, and is not portable.  


> And not as good-looking as GTK+.

>   According to Debian's Popularity Contest [5], this package has zero
>   users, so I am tempted to drop it from Etch.  Speak up if you want
>   me to keep it.

Just announce it again when you drop it. A X11-Binding would have been
nice for experiments, especially for trying to write a Ada native
widget set, but that not here, rather science fiction (or more likely
alternate history ...), so ...

> 
> - TASH, the Tcl Ada SHell [6], includes a binding to Tk; it is
>   available as a Debian package, under GMGPL, from Ada-France [7] and
>   AdaWorld [8].  TASH is portable, but has not been updated since
>   2003.

> Thoughts, comments, offers to help?

I'd like to help establishing GMGPL libraries (for libraries that get
linked into distributed executables, GPL is OK with me for the tool
chain). 

My thoughts, rather jumbled, I fear I've offered above.

Sorry for all this. I feel like single handedly killing Ada on Debian
for asking that stupid licensing question at the beginning.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ed Falis]

M E Leypold wrote:

>> AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee.  Only source is
>> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.
>
> Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer:
> In my eyes GPL is OK here.

Note that AUnit has been GPL from its first release in 2000.  Since its
intent is user "in-house" testing rather than any kind of
re-distribution of test cases, I considered it the appropriate license.

- Ed

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Ed Falis <falis@verizon.net> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> 
> >> AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee.  Only source is
> >> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.
> >
> > Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer:
> > In my eyes GPL is OK here.
> 
> Note that AUnit has been GPL from its first release in 2000.  Since its
> intent is user "in-house" testing rather than any kind of
> re-distribution of test cases, I considered it the appropriate license.

Ed, I agree. 

Tools for inhouse use are appropriately GPL IMHO. We don't want anyone
to run away with tools chain after all :-). The issues here -- where
all that started -- are different (not with new licenses but with the
possible retroactive change of old licenses, license changes on
unchanged source, missing or misleading license notices and a general
amnesia).

I'm sure you'll see that after wading through all that fallout. 

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

M E Leypold writes:
> Ed Falis <falis@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> M E Leypold wrote:
>> 
>> >> AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee.  Only source is
>> >> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL.
>> >
>> > Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer:
>> > In my eyes GPL is OK here.
>> 
>> Note that AUnit has been GPL from its first release in 2000.  Since its
>> intent is user "in-house" testing rather than any kind of
>> re-distribution of test cases, I considered it the appropriate license.
>
> Ed, I agree. 
>
> Tools for inhouse use are appropriately GPL IMHO. We don't want anyone
> to run away with tools chain after all :-). The issues here -- where
> all that started -- are different (not with new licenses but with the
> possible retroactive change of old licenses, license changes on
> unchanged source, missing or misleading license notices and a general
> amnesia).
>
> I'm sure you'll see that after wading through all that fallout. 
>
> Regards -- Markus

Ed is the author of AUnit, he was just correcting an oversight I made
in the post that started this thread.  He is well aware of all the
issues involved.

BTW, thanks for the correction, Ed.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

M E Leypold writes:
> Ludovic Brenta writes:
>> - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
>>   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
>
> Please. Also It would be useful to ask AdaCore to document the
> provenience of the sources they distribute: At which distribution
> points the got the source, what are their assurances that they are
> allowed to distribute the sources under GPL and so on :-). What their
> baseline version is (that is from which version on they started to
> "contribute" to the code base).

I'd rather spend my time on the technical side of things.  I'm a
software engineer :-)

I'll see how much interest there is in GMGPL versions of libraries,
and decide then.  You can ask these authors directly if you want to.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> M E Leypold writes:
> > Ludovic Brenta writes:
> >> - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
> >>   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
> >
> > Please. Also It would be useful to ask AdaCore to document the
> > provenience of the sources they distribute: At which distribution
> > points the got the source, what are their assurances that they are
> > allowed to distribute the sources under GPL and so on :-). What their
> > baseline version is (that is from which version on they started to
> > "contribute" to the code base).
> 
> I'd rather spend my time on the technical side of things.  I'm a

Me too.

> software engineer :-)

So am I. Unfortunately clean beaselines seem to be required to sort
that mess out, excapt if you want to go to GPL in all aspects (which I
won't, I'll rather drop Ada).

> I'll see how much interest there is in GMGPL versions of libraries,
> and decide then.  You can ask these authors directly if you want to.

I'll poll at c.l.a within the next week on how many people are
intrested in GMGPL baselines. If there is intrest I'll try to
establish them / ask authors.

If you want to poll for intrest in GMGPL versions of the libraries,
please do so.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> servers.  In summary:
> 
> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
>   headers say.
> 
> - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
>   source-only form.
> 
> - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
>   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
> 
> - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
>   (they are not required to sign anything, of course).

I'm a little confused by all this...

Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from
what you understand:

1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked?
2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL?
3) the licences were granted and are still in force?
4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)?

(does this cover the basic possibilities?)

the code in question being GtkAda, libgnat, GLADE, etc.

In some cases (GtkAda?), the original authors transferred copyright to
AdaCore(?) - did the original authors revoke or repudiate the licences
in effecting this transfer?

Thanks.
--
Dr. Adrian Wrigley,
Cambridge.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote :
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>
> > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> > servers.  In summary:
> >
> > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
> >   headers say.
> >
> > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
> >   source-only form.
> >
> > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
> >   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
> >
> > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
> >   (they are not required to sign anything, of course).
>
> I'm a little confused by all this...
>
> Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from
> what you understand:
>
> 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked?

Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic
instantiation" exception is revoked.

> 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL?

They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal
perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me,
or anyone else, for that. IANAL.

> 3) the licences were granted and are still in force?

I don't know. I asked but they wouldn't go into specifics. Ask them for
yourself, if you're concerned.

> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?

They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
copyright holder has legal force.

> 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)?

Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and
certify, but not in writing :(

> (does this cover the basic possibilities?)
>
> the code in question being GtkAda, libgnat, GLADE, etc.
>
> In some cases (GtkAda?), the original authors transferred copyright to
> AdaCore(?) - did the original authors revoke or repudiate the licences
> in effecting this transfer?

As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask
each author individually.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote :
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> >
> > > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> > > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> > > servers.  In summary:
> > >
> > > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
> > >   headers say.
> > >
> > > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
> > >   source-only form.
> > >
> > > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
> > >   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
> > >
> > > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
> > >   (they are not required to sign anything, of course).
> >
> > I'm a little confused by all this...
> >
> > Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from
> > what you understand:
> >
> > 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked?
> 
> Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic
> instantiation" exception is revoked.
> 
> > 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL?
> 
> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's

Considering that act-europe.fr carried the GMGPL license notice for
GtkAda et al until 2005/2 at least, there is nothing to worry about
(except the attitude of ACT).

> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in
> fact I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of
> the copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a
> legal perspective.

They say.

> Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me,
> or anyone else, for that. IANAL.

IANAL2.

> 
> > 3) the licences were granted and are still in force?
> 
> I don't know. I asked but they wouldn't go into specifics. Ask them for
> yourself, if you're concerned.
> 
> > 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
> 
> They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> copyright holder has legal force.

They say. 

> 
> > 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)?
> 
> Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and
> certify, but not in writing :(

So they will take even that back in 2 years from now? ...

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:28:38 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote :
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>>
>> > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
>> > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
>> > servers.  In summary:
>> >
>> > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
>> >   headers say.
>> >
>> > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
>> >   source-only form.
>> >
>> > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
>> >   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
>> >
>> > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
>> >   (they are not required to sign anything, of course).
>>
>> I'm a little confused by all this...
>>
>> Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from
>> what you understand:
>>
>> 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked?
> 
> Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic
> instantiation" exception is revoked.
> 
>> 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL?
> 
> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
> copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal
> perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me,
> or anyone else, for that. IANAL.
> 
>> 3) the licences were granted and are still in force?
> 
> I don't know. I asked but they wouldn't go into specifics. Ask them for
> yourself, if you're concerned.
> 
>> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
> 
> They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> copyright holder has legal force.
> 
>> 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)?
> 
> Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and
> certify, but not in writing :(
> 
>> (does this cover the basic possibilities?)
>>
>> the code in question being GtkAda, libgnat, GLADE, etc.
>>
>> In some cases (GtkAda?), the original authors transferred copyright to
>> AdaCore(?) - did the original authors revoke or repudiate the licences
>> in effecting this transfer?
> 
> As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask
> each author individually.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
--
Adrian

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:40:51 GMT, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:

> 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.

Exactly. That was my question in another thread.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

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.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> 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

> A license is not the same as a contract.  A contract has to have

Before we talk so all inclusive on contract an licnesing laws, I'd
remind evryone that GtkAda has not been distributed in the US
only. European contract law, German contract law and the basic
concepts behind it are very different.

I do not say, that we shouldn't discuss our respective rights. But
even if the conclusion might hold in another jurisdiction, the
reasoning might be unparsable.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> 
> 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.

I disagree. I am not a lawyer, but a public declaration of intent to
grant the public certain rights should actually suffice to constitute
a right. That is the way "putting something into the public domain"
works and even if the GPL is more complex I doubt that you have to
have a contract to have something to stand on legally.

But IANAL. Don't take that as legal advice.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:18:37 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
 
> 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.

After I sent my message, I found this article:
http://www.advogato.org/article/606.html

I have changed my position slightly.

It doesn't seem clear to "the experts" whether GPL is perpetual
or revocable or not :(   And it doesn't seem clear whether it is
a simple copyright licence, or is part of a contract :(
But it is clear that significanty different interpretations would
be placed on the GPL by different legal systems and different
(US) states :(

I do believe that there is "consideration" required of a (English)
contract. GPL *obligates* the licensee to make available source code to
everyone to whom a binary is distributed.  And it *obligates* the licensee
to license source modifications to the recipients of binaries, and
*obligates* the licensee to grant the rights to pass the source to third
parties.  These obligations on the licensee can be extremely valuable to
the licensor.  But the lack of any obligation on the licensee to
distribute in the first place may invalidate the contingent obligation.
Perhaps the contract is formed when the licensee takes actions of
possible benefit to the licensor (such as distribution, modification etc)?
In the end, I don't know how important the contract question is, but
it is unquestionable that damages are caused to parties who seem to
have lost rights to distribute their Ada programs by the recent changes.

The Free Software Definition from gnu.org says:

"In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long
as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to
revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the
software is not free."

It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software
that GPL is not revocable.  The Ada software in question does not
meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really
have been revoked.

The strange thing is that nobody seems to benefit from the changes
and the consequent FUD :(
--
Dr. Adrian Wrigley,
Cambridge.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:51 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:

> "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long
> as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to
> revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the
> software is not free."
> 
> It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software
> that GPL is not revocable.  The Ada software in question does not
> meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really
> have been revoked.

There is no instance of anything being revoked, AFAICS, if AdaCore
is entitled to drop the exception from the source they distribute,
which might feel like something has been revoked. I doubt this
is an adequate description of the (GM)GPL legal situation.

The license text is the GPL in either case, GPL or GPL with the
special exception.

If any license has been granted to anyone, and they have been told
their license has been revoked, although they have done nothing
wrong, please speak up.


> The strange thing is that nobody seems to benefit from the changes
> and the consequent FUD :(

Right. This is why this thread should not continue to try to construct
or reconstruct, or invent, what supposedly was or is legally relevant
information in some past, freely mixing the past and the present.
All we have is hints, and AdaCore notes from two different points in
time.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 13:14 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:51 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:

> > It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software
> > that GPL is not revocable.  The Ada software in question does not
> > meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really
> > have been revoked.
> 
> There is no instance of anything being revoked, AFAICS, if AdaCore
> is entitled to drop the exception from the source they distribute,
> which might feel like something has been revoked. I doubt this
> is an adequate description of the (GM)GPL legal situation.

Does someone know whether the right to use something is the
same as a license, and on what continent, or island?

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Georg Bauhaus wrote :
> Does someone know whether the right to use something is the
> same as a license, and on what continent, or island?

The right to use falls outside of the scope of copyright law. Copyright
law only deals with the right to copy, modify and redistribute. This is
explained in the preliminary notes of the GPL.

If a licensor wants to restrict or control usage of their software, the
only way they can do this is by signing a contract with the licensee.

For example, Java's license has, or used to have, a clause that forbids
use in the nuclear industry or in life-critical applications. Such
clause is null and void from a legal perspective, because the licensor
has no right to control or restrict usage of their software, but only
copying, modification, and distribution. (there are of course good
technical reasons why only a pointy-haired manager would use Java in
life-critical applications, but that's not the point).

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:51 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
> 
> > "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long
> > as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to
> > revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the
> > software is not free."
> > 
> > It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software
> > that GPL is not revocable.  The Ada software in question does not
> > meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really
> > have been revoked.
> 
> There is no instance of anything being revoked, AFAICS, if AdaCore
> is entitled to drop the exception from the source they distribute,
> which might feel like something has been revoked. I doubt this
> is an adequate description of the (GM)GPL legal situation.

Come on. They don't want to admit they ever distributed under
GMGPL. Put that together with their theory of "you must always check
with te licensor", than that is nearest you can get to a revocation,
without actually saying so. Of course it's none, but it makes
FUD. It's not good enough for telling third parties that a given lib
is under GMGPL.

> The license text is the GPL in either case, GPL or GPL with the
> special exception.

We know, that you don't want to see the difference. Since you don't
care for it, you'd also not see that anything changed.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

"Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes:

> The strange thing is that nobody seems to benefit from the changes
> and the consequent FUD :(

Exactly. I still wonder why AdaCore doesn't speak up clearly, saying
when the license change occurred, letting the old versions under GMGPL
(even if they now come from their site). Yes, there is a certain
probability of a community supported version arising. It won't hurt
them, since I don't think those wanting to buy Gnat Pro support would
really want a community supported version (read: slowly maintained, no
support on demand, no new Gtk features) anyway.

My guess would be that they actually forgot the anon cvs and forgot to
strip the linking excaption there and are now entrenching themselves
in a probably untenable legal theory that (a) the license notices in
the files have no meaning whatsoever and (b) everything is GPL now,
even the old versions, because they don't want anyone to become wise
on that and just compile himself GtkAda from the CVS source to get a
GMGPL library. (IANAL).

I'd wish that a really big player would do exactly that. It'd be
against the spririt of free software (I usually try even to get the
authors agreement if I'm mirroring sources from their distribution
sites) and an act of blatant and arrogant highway robbery, but it
would be a sort of just punishment. That wont happen, I know, but one
can dream. (I bet it would happen if I forgot to put my license
notices right).

Looking at the CVS I tend to think that even the 2.8.x source should
still be GMGPL mostly. But IANAL. 

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

"Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes:
> > 
> > As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask
> > each author individually.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting
> apparent changes in licensing conditions.  The issues raised here

Yes. He has my compassion. Just to find myself in the same position
and since I cannot trust mere rumor on c.l.a. (remember: Have to ask
the licensor, directly!) I have written to ACT to ask the same or
perhaps slightly different questions. I looking forward to my
answer(s).

> are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees
> and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences.


> 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.

I agree.


> 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.

That was my impression.

> I am at a loss to understand what basis there is for revoking the
> licences already issued.  As a party to the licence

Well -- it seems, the situation is more complex. The source they
distribute now is unchanged BUT with another license (IMHO you can
only drop the exception clause when you change something, but perhaps
that does not apply to the copyright owner).

They don't say the other licenses where not GMGPL or are revoked, They
only don't remember.

> contract between myself and the authors, I feel aggrieved.

So I've been feeling for some time, especially since I have been
repeatedly lectured here on how unreasonable I've been to have
expected more than GPL .. -- What? I've not been expecting GMGPL, I do
have copies of web pages from ACT _telling_ me that I'm licensing
unter GMGPL and I might be forgiven that I find that loss of memory on
ACTs part slightly unsettling.

> I have kept to my side of the bargain.  I'm not convinced they
> have kept to theirs.

:-)


> 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

That is exactly what I've been saying (look at my post with "luck" in
the title). I _am_ glad that I just barely missed a situation where
I've to explain all this to a certain customer, regardless of wether
we can resolve that with a lawyers help to a point where we see that
we still have rights to use GtkAda under GMGPL.

It's the lawyer that will make the customer very skittish indeed.

And there is my point that all this is damaging Ada beyond
redemption. You can all deny that. You can all say that the hobbyist
can still use that and that the commercial user can still license this
or should be able to pay that. At the end of the day this are just all
very convincing attempts to close the eyes to the inevitable: The
situation as it is, generates uncertainty and doubt. Fear will follow
and I predict the last commercial (and no, Government, NASA, ESA and
defense industry DON'T count, this is all a very closed and special
market of its own) -- I predict that after the water have reached a
certain amount of muddiness, the commercial users will leave Ada as
language or not adopt it, as will the hobbyist with a professional
attitude (the boundaries aren't quite so clear indeed).

> being revoked, changed or withdrawn, without adequate explanation
> is certainly a breach of the implied social "contract" created
> when software is published.

Thanks. You expressed my opinion very clearly.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Simon Wright]

"Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes:

> 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.

The GPL includes statements about transferability, the modifications
don't (but there is nothing to say they _don't_ transfer, so one might
expect the GPL provisions to apply).

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The GPL includes statements about transferability, the modifications
> don't (but there is nothing to say they _don't_ transfer, so one might
> expect the GPL provisions to apply).

Exactly. 

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

>> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
>
> They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> copyright holder has legal force.


From a well know file named COPYING (note paragraph 2):

	    How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

  If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) 19yy  <name of author>

    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
    Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA


-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:

> "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> 
> >> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
> >
> > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> > copyright holder has legal force.
> 
> 
> From a well know file named COPYING (note paragraph 2):
> 
> 	    How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs


>   To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest
> to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
> convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
> the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

Ah bah -- Michael,

You know that the FSF doesn't have a clue? :-). Just joking -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

>> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
>
> They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> copyright holder has legal force.

Oh, and BTW I suppose the following then also has no legal force:

-- This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,   --
-- but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of    --
-- MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU --
-- General Public License for more details.                          --

(from gdk.ads)

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:

> "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> 
> >> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
> >
> > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> > copyright holder has legal force.
> 
> Oh, and BTW I suppose the following then also has no legal force:
> 
> -- This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,   --
> -- but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of    --
> -- MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU --
> -- General Public License for more details.                          --


Ah yes, that has no legal force. Good idea. I'll sent ACT a bill for
the time I spent debugging 3.15p. After all their exclusion of
warranty had no legal force.

What a absolutely /&$"/&�$!"/�$ <censored>.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Florian Weimer]

* Ludovic Brenta:

> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
> copyright holders.

You didn't download from Adacore, I think, but from NYU.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * Ludovic Brenta:
>
>> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
>> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
>> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
>> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
>> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
>> copyright holders.
>
> You didn't download from Adacore, I think, but from NYU.

I did download quite a lot from AdaCore: GtkAda, AWS, XML/Ada, and
also GPS but that's not a library.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> 
> > * Ludovic Brenta:
> >
> >> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
> >> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
> >> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
> >> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
> >> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
> >> copyright holders.
> >
> > You didn't download from Adacore, I think, but from NYU.
> 
> I did download quite a lot from AdaCore: GtkAda, AWS, XML/Ada, and
> also GPS but that's not a library.


Ah, but did you download from libre or from libre2? :-)

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Florian Weimer]

* Ludovic Brenta:

> I did download quite a lot from AdaCore: GtkAda, AWS, XML/Ada [...]

Ah, okay.  The libraries are indeed problematic if you need the
linking exception.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Preben Randhol]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote on 27/06/2006 (17:30) :
> > 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked?
> 
> Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic
> instantiation" exception is revoked.

Can you update the packafe descriptions of the ada packages saying something
like: Please note: You will only be able to make pure GPL programs with
this compiler/library.

> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
> copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal
> perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me,
> or anyone else, for that. IANAL.

If you are worried by this I think we should revoke all gnat packages
from Debian.

> > 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)?
> 
> Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and
> certify, but not in writing :(

How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was
GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. 

I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate
to licenses.

Preben

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 15:50 +0200, Preben Randhol wrote:


> How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was
> GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. 
> 
> I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate
> to licenses.

Good Grief!
First thing to do if you receive software and worry about its
license is to find the license document. Then, if you need to
be fairly certain that you can do what you think you can do is
ask a lawyer. AdaCore has done so in the past, even informally
here on c.l.ada.

If you consider Python (no machine code, very little compile time
checking) as a replacement for Ada, I wonder whether this is really
about licensing. FUD at its best.

I hereby declare that Microsoft has several patents pending on the
execution of compiled python code within the .NET framework.
As the .NET framework will sooner of later start emulating x86
machine code on virtual hardware, jointly developed with VMware,
you can't trust the Python language any longer.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> First thing to do if you receive software and worry about its
> license is to find the license document. Then, if you need to
> be fairly certain that you can do what you think you can do is
> ask a lawyer. AdaCore has done so in the past, even informally
> here on c.l.ada.
This last sentence is a dangling thought. Please,
for Sentence'Storage_Pool use null.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> First thing to do if you receive software and worry about its
>> license is to find the license document. Then, if you need to
>> be fairly certain that you can do what you think you can do is
>> ask a lawyer. AdaCore has done so in the past, even informally
>> here on c.l.ada.
> This last sentence is a dangling thought. Please,
> for Sentence'Storage_Pool use null.

I'd ask the author before asking a lawyer.  Keep the lawyers at bay
whenever you can :-)

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes:

> Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote on 27/06/2006 (17:30) :
>> > 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked?
>> 
>> Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic
>> instantiation" exception is revoked.
>
> Can you update the packafe descriptions of the ada packages saying something
> like: Please note: You will only be able to make pure GPL programs with
> this compiler/library.

I've started doing that with ASIS, which I am preparing for upload.  I
will continue to do that for the other packages as I update them.  But
the GMGPL remains in force for all packages that were previously GMGPL
in Sarge.

>> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
>> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
>> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
>> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
>> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
>> copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal
>> perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me,
>> or anyone else, for that. IANAL.
>
> If you are worried by this I think we should revoke all gnat packages
> from Debian.

I am not worried, and since the same reasoning applies to all software
in Debian, then Debian and all software should disappear.  I don't
think that's realistic or true.

>> > 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)?
>> 
>> Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and
>> certify, but not in writing :(
>
> How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was
> GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. 

Ask the authors, if you trust the AUTHORS file :)

> I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate
> to licenses.

That will not solve the problem.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

And this is really the core of the problem at the moment. Can you
trust ACT? 

>>>>> "PR" == Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes:

<snip>

    PR> How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was
    PR> GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. 

    PR> I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate
    PR> to licenses.

    PR> Preben

-- 
   *NOT* speaking for my employer

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Simon Wright]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> copyright holder has legal force.

I had an off-the-cuff opinion from a lawyer that to publish
contradictory statements about copyright and licensing is at the least
going to make any legal case more difficult.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> servers.  In summary:
>
> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
>   headers say.
>
> - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
>   source-only form.
>
> - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
>   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
>
> - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
>   (they are not required to sign anything, of course).

How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? How is any
Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file
headers are invalid? How do *you* know? You have nothing written and
signed and the authors deny any validity of anything written in the
software itself.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote:
> "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> 
> > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> > servers.  In summary:

>  How is any
> Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file
> headers are invalid?

The file headers aren't invalid. That sounds like nitpicking,
but "invalid" has different meaning. Anyway, all this is relevant
only when someone uses software in a way that by applicable
law is (a) illegal, and (b) this fact is made a legal issue.

As long as Debian doesn't have any legal obligations, they can
proactively try to reduce the risk of being associated with
software that incurs a surprising legal status. I think that
one way to do this is to collect all available evidence,
and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it.
Chances are that they represent the legal party that could make
a claim.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> The file headers aren't invalid. That sounds like nitpicking,
> but "invalid" has different meaning.

Ok. ... if file headers are lying.

> Anyway, all this is relevant only when someone uses software in a
> way that by applicable law is (a) illegal, and (b) this fact is made
> a legal issue.

Debian is distributing the software. If at some later point in time it
is claimed that the software today was not under GPL but some other
license which forbids distribution they have a problem. Seems like
this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. 

> As long as Debian doesn't have any legal obligations, they can
> proactively try to reduce the risk of being associated with
> software that incurs a surprising legal status. I think that
> one way to do this is to collect all available evidence,
> and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it.

They only can collect bits which are not signed with strong crypto.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 21:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote:

> Debian is distributing the software. If at some later point in time it
> is claimed that the software today was not under GPL but some other
> license which forbids distribution they have a problem.

Yes, they will have a problem if someone accuses them of distributing
software they weren't allowed to distribute. But...

>  Seems like
> this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. 

I'm not so sure. First, I don't think that the maintainers of Ada
stuff in Debian will have a problem. By design, they never distribute
anything without providing access to the source code as well.
So GMGPL or GPL is not a legal issue at all from a Debian maintainer's
perspective, as long as the issue is whether it is GPL or GMGPL.

Now if you wanted to make a claim that in spite of messages from
AdaCore officials to the contrary, software downloaded from the
AdaCore site is neither GPLed nor GMGPLed, then I think everyone
will be eager to hear what else it is.

> > to collect all available evidence,
> > and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it.
> 
> They only can collect bits which are not signed with strong crypto.

I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of
paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel.
This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates,
is GPLed. Would you believe it?

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

>>  Seems like
>> this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. 
>
> I'm not so sure. First, I don't think that the maintainers of Ada
> stuff in Debian will have a problem. By design, they never distribute
> anything without providing access to the source code as well.
> So GMGPL or GPL is not a legal issue at all from a Debian maintainer's
> perspective, as long as the issue is whether it is GPL or GMGPL.
>
> Now if you wanted to make a claim that in spite of messages from
> AdaCore officials to the contrary, software downloaded from the
> AdaCore site is neither GPLed nor GMGPLed, then I think everyone
> will be eager to hear what else it is.

I did not claim that Debian right now has a problem with GtkAda. I
claim that a sudden, secret and maybe retroactive (or maybe it was
between 2.4.0 and 2.4.1?, AdaCore won't tell us) change of license
happend to GtkAda. And if that happens once ...

Regarding messages from AdaCore to the contrary of anything:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050224092046/http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 22:23 +0200, Michael Bode wrote:

>  I
> claim that a sudden, secret and maybe retroactive (or maybe it was
> between 2.4.0 and 2.4.1?, AdaCore won't tell us) change of license
> happend to GtkAda. And if that happens once ...
> 
> Regarding messages from AdaCore to the contrary of anything:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20050224092046/http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/
> 

Ludovic lets us know a response from AdaCore that uses the _present_
tense,

- All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
  headers say.

I don't think that _if_ there was a legal status at a time in the
recent past, this status can be declared something different.
These things should happen only after one legal system has been
dropped in favor of another, for example after a war.
I am aware that many of the software packages used to be advertised
as being GMGPL.

With Debian in particular,
I think there might be more issues, like you don't want to stress your
good relations with AdaCore, if any, if you are maintaining Debian Ada 
software that nowadays is mostly produced by AdaCore. This, I guess,
is just a business issue for some who are involved.

In fact, we might be able to produce more GPLed software for profit
in spite of all the rogues around. It's worth a try, anyway, and
some report success.

Yet, what about a collaborative effort to produce good general
purpose Ada libraries to be used in Ada programs,
irrespective of the compiler. Hm. A PAL with funding from everyone
involved, including compiler makers and their customers.
We've all got to make a living, haven't we?


Georg 

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Björn Persson]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Yet, what about a collaborative effort to produce good general
> purpose Ada libraries to be used in Ada programs,
> irrespective of the compiler. Hm. A PAL with funding from everyone
> involved, including compiler makers and their customers.

If a project were to be started with the purpose of writing and 
maintaining GMGPL libraries, would you donate some of your time?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 22:53 +0000, Björn Persson wrote:

> If a project were to be started with the purpose of writing and 
> maintaining GMGPL libraries, would you donate some of your time?

Certainly. In a few month from now I should find some time.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 22:23 +0200, Michael Bode wrote:
> 
> >  I
> > claim that a sudden, secret and maybe retroactive (or maybe it was
> > between 2.4.0 and 2.4.1?, AdaCore won't tell us) change of license
> > happend to GtkAda. And if that happens once ...
> > 
> > Regarding messages from AdaCore to the contrary of anything:
> > 
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20050224092046/http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/
> > 
> 
> Ludovic lets us know a response from AdaCore that uses the _present_
> tense,
> 
> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
>   headers say.
> 
> I don't think that _if_ there was a legal status at a time in the
> recent past, this status can be declared something different.

Fine. Problem is the amnesia presently ravaging ACT headquarters. They
don't remember the past or don't talk about it. It certainly would be
going out on a limb if anyone distributes GtkAda 2.4.0 (from old
libre) now as GMGPL which is exactly the same version as 2.4.0
deistributed from ACT today which is GPL and relies on his/her memory
only regarding the license the thing had when it was downloaded. After
all, the licensing statements in the tarball itself are far from clear
(which started all that hullabaloo in the very beginning).


> These things should happen only after one legal system has been
> dropped in favor of another, for example after a war.  I am aware
> that many of the software packages used to be advertised as being
> GMGPL.

Well. Can I call you as witness? Will that suffice? -- You see my
point.


> With Debian in particular, I think there might be more issues, like
> you don't want to stress your good relations with AdaCore, if any,

That certainly seems to be on of the factors in a number of cases.

> if you are maintaining Debian Ada software that nowadays is mostly
> produced by AdaCore.

> This, I guess, is just a business issue for some who are involved.

Which perhaps should cut both ways. ACTs distributions never installed
flawlessly in a give system, so they should be _very_ grateful for the
work of debian maintainers which are doing a lot of free advertisment
for ACT by providing well maintained no-hassle installations of ACTs
public versions.


> Yet, what about a collaborative effort to produce good general
> purpose Ada libraries to be used in Ada programs,
> irrespective of the compiler. Hm. A PAL with funding from everyone
> involved, including compiler makers and their customers.
> We've all got to make a living, haven't we?

I would participate, but not if I can't sell a closed programm now and
then (or at least assure the customer that I am allowed to sign away
my rights to him). But I don't suppose you'd want GMGPL libraries, would you?

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 21:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote:
> 
> > Debian is distributing the software. If at some later point in time it
> > is claimed that the software today was not under GPL but some other
> > license which forbids distribution they have a problem.
> 
> Yes, they will have a problem if someone accuses them of distributing
> software they weren't allowed to distribute. But...
> 
> >  Seems like
> > this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. 
> 
> I'm not so sure. First, I don't think that the maintainers of Ada
> stuff in Debian will have a problem. By design, they never distribute
> anything without providing access to the source code as well.
> So GMGPL or GPL is not a legal issue at all from a Debian maintainer's
> perspective, as long as the issue is whether it is GPL or GMGPL.

May I play the sweet melody of damages ACT might (in extremis) want
from the Debian maintainers (not that I believe that, but you were the
one starting to analyze the legal situation). Debian has distributed
the packages in question under a license which is probably more
liberal than ACT would have it to be. Other used them in good faith in
proprietary software. Two parties now have problems: The ones whose
software is now suddenly open and ACT whose software has been used
"illegally".

Don't fear: I don't have that situation, I'll not sue or whatever. But
proposing that Debian could not have incurred some liability is a bit
naive.

So Debian is right to go the safe way, even if that just illustrates
the power of FUD.


> Now if you wanted to make a claim that in spite of messages from
> AdaCore officials to the contrary, software downloaded from the
> AdaCore site is neither GPLed nor GMGPLed, then I think everyone
> will be eager to hear what else it is.

In a year from now? Who knows. You see: Files in the ditro and file
headers are not binding.  E-Mails from ACT probably have a similar
ephemeral status if not signed with strong crypto. So you'll never
know what the future brings.
> 
> > > to collect all available evidence,
> > > and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it.
> > 
> > They only can collect bits which are not signed with strong crypto.> 

> I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of
> paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel.
> This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates,
> is GPLed. Would you believe it?

No. On the other side I think, that MS would take action on that very
soon, when it becomes public, whereas the GtkAda source has been in
public with ACTs knowledge for quite a time. They know what the
headers say since version 1.3.x and I find it not creditable that they
never wondered about their meaning, sort of.

Implied consent?

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of
> paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel.
> This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates,
> is GPLed. Would you believe it?

If I had downloaded it myself from
https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ?

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Frank J. Lhota]

Michael Bode wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:
> 
>> I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of
>> paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel.
>> This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates,
>> is GPLed. Would you believe it?
> 
> If I had downloaded it myself from
> https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ?


Folks, Georg was only kidding. We will have to wait a *long* time to see 
"gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL.

AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any OS 
except the DOS 1.x BIOS. Two years ago, there was a panic over the 
leaking of the source code for Windows NT / 2000; see

	http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=17509

This immediately raised the concern that hackers could use this source 
code to pinpoint vulnerabilities. So much for the concept of security 
through obscurity!

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ed Falis]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:

> AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any OS
> except the DOS 1.x BIOS.

My brother works for MS.  I'm pretty sure he told me late last year that
MS does make the source code available for a price as part of their
shared source initiative.

- Ed

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Florian Weimer]

* Frank J. Lhota:

> AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any OS
> except the DOS 1.x BIOS.

Most Microsoft software is available in source code form.  And they
adhere to the GPL if necessary.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Preben Randhol]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:55:52 +0200
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

> * Frank J. Lhota:
> 
> > AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any
> > OS except the DOS 1.x BIOS.
> 
> Most Microsoft software is available in source code form.  And they
> adhere to the GPL if necessary.

Where?

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Georg Bauhaus]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> Michael Bode wrote:
>> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:
>>> Consider a few sheets of
>>> paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel.
>>> This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates,
>>> is GPLed. Would you believe it?
>>
>> If I had downloaded it myself from
>> https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ?
> 
> Folks, Georg was only kidding.

Well, not really. 

> We will have to wait a *long* time to see 
> "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL.

Though,
http://www.microsoft.com/spain/sharedsource/Articles/GNU.mspx

From the XEN laboratory at U of Cambridge:
"A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen,
but is not available for release due to licence restrictions."

Seems to me a word with those whose software you are using is
always a way. I'd prefer this to arguing about license headers,
and I guess that most compiler shops will prefer a simple, quiet,
reasonable deal, too.
 Wouldn't they know what software production is about?

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Frank J. Lhota]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> Folks, Georg was only kidding.
> 
> Well, not really.

The URL https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src does not 
currently appear to be up. I just assumed it was a joke. If it wasn't, I 
humbly apologize. Out of curiosity, if this was a real site, what source 
files did it offer?

>> We will have to wait a *long* time to see "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the 
>> same URL.
> 
> Though,
> http://www.microsoft.com/spain/sharedsource/Articles/GNU.mspx
> 
>  From the XEN laboratory at U of Cambridge:
> "A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen,
> but is not available for release due to licence restrictions."
> 
> Seems to me a word with those whose software you are using is
> always a way. I'd prefer this to arguing about license headers,
> and I guess that most compiler shops will prefer a simple, quiet,
> reasonable deal, too.
> Wouldn't they know what software production is about?

One would hope!

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

"Frank J. Lhota" <flhota.NOSPAM@ll.mit.edu> writes:

> The URL https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src does
> not currently appear to be up. I just assumed it was a joke.

Yes, that was a joke.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

"Frank J. Lhota" <flhota.NOSPAM@ll.mit.edu> writes:

>> If I had downloaded it myself from
>> https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ?
>
>
> Folks, Georg was only kidding. We will have to wait a *long* time to
> see "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL.

Yeah, that would be surprising. The point was this: if I take someone
elses closed source software and stick a COPYING to it, then of course
this cannot result in the software suddenly becoming GPL. 

But if the author of said software sprinkles it all over the place
with licensing declarations (about 200 *.ads files in GtkAda contain
the GMGPL header) then I would believe that this means what it says.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Florian Weimer]

* Frank J. Lhota:

> Folks, Georg was only kidding. We will have to wait a *long* time to
> see "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL.

*yawn*

<ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/sfu35/sources/Interix/gnu/>

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote:
> > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> > 
> > > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> > > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> > > servers.  In summary:
> 
> >  How is any
> > Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file
> > headers are invalid?
> 
> The file headers aren't invalid. That sounds like nitpicking,
> but "invalid" has different meaning.

Like?

> only when someone uses software in a way that by applicable
> law is (a) illegal, and (b) this fact is made a legal issue.

Sorry. That is, in example, quite relevant, if, in example, someone
just picks the files with linking exception from the package and
creates a GMGPL binding from that.

Which he/she should be allowed to do, if the headers have any meaning.

> As long as Debian doesn't have any legal obligations, they can
> proactively try to reduce the risk of being associated with software
> that incurs a surprising legal status.

Man, man. The "surprising legal status" is something that should never
have happened. And forgive me: It's not Debian which is at fault here.

> I think that one way to do this is to collect all available
> evidence, and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it.  

For what? They are not actually giving any useful words, AFAIS.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:
> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? How is any
> Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file
> headers are invalid? How do *you* know? You have nothing written and
> signed and the authors deny any validity of anything written in the
> software itself.

This is becoming metaphysical.  Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your
argument applies to all software that is not at least
cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed
license statement :) (note: software distributed by Debian _is_
cryptographically signed, but that from upstream is not.

AdaCore make no claim as to the license terms for software I download
from other sites than AdaCore.  And I don't think they can
retroactively revoke the licenses that Debian received when I
initially downloaded the software from NYU, AdaCore, or other places.
But IANAL.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> This is becoming metaphysical.  Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your
> argument applies to all software that is not at least
> cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed
> license statement :)

It applies only to software from authors who don't accept the section
'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' from the file COPYING.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:

> Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> 
> > This is becoming metaphysical.  Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your
> > argument applies to all software that is not at least
> > cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed
> > license statement :)
> 
> It applies only to software from authors who don't accept the section
> 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' from the file COPYING.

If I think about that, that would make the situation clear. The
COPYING file says that the copyright is in the headers, so the headers
are binding. These have a linking exception, so the single files are
under GMGPL. Just delete any non-GMGPL stuff from GtkAda that would
get linked to your executable and then you have GMGPL-GtkAda [1].

Hm. I think we'll just have to ask a lawyer about that.

Michael, mail me privately on that. I got me an idea :-).

Regards -- Markus


PS: [1] I'm not alawyer. Don't construe that legal advice. It isn't.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:
> > How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? How is any
> > Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file
> > headers are invalid? How do *you* know? You have nothing written and
> > signed and the authors deny any validity of anything written in the
> > software itself.
> 
> This is becoming metaphysical.  Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your
> argument applies to all software that is not at least
> cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed
> license statement :) (note: software distributed by Debian _is_
> cryptographically signed, but that from upstream is not.
> 
> AdaCore make no claim as to the license terms for software I download
> from other sites than AdaCore.  And I don't think they can

Which leaves ypu with the fact that you don't know anything about
that, since the licensing terms in the GtkAda source tarball are far
from clearly stated.

> retroactively revoke the licenses that Debian received when I
> initially downloaded the software from NYU, AdaCore, or other places.

One would think. I think Michael has just overstating the problem
behind all that, but you see it too, don't you? I'd go as far as
saying, that ACT did purposefully muddy the water, since it is hardly
believable, that they don't know what and how they distributed from
libre.act-europe.fr. A statement of "it now like this, everthing up to
version x has been GMPL and/or everything you got from
libre.act-europe.fr or before $DATE is GMGPL" would not have cost them
much. But they didn't.

> But IANAL.

IANAL2.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Florian Weimer]

* Michael Bode:

> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all?

Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages.
I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper
compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions
from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got
statements in writing to the contrary).

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Michael Bode]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

>> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all?
>
> Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages.
> I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper
> compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions
> from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got
> statements in writing to the contrary).

That I can understand. However I think most (L/GM/)GPL software
authors respect all parts of COPYING and thus respect the file headers
they had applied in accordance with COPYING.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * Michael Bode:
>
>> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all?
>
> Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages.

Oh yes, per Policy.

> I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper
> compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions
> from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got
> statements in writing to the contrary).

So far, Debian has provided a some form of assurances by means of the
copyright file shipped with every package, and cryptographically
signed by the package maintainer (i.e. myself in the case of Ada
packages).

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Florian Weimer]

* Ludovic Brenta:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>
>> * Michael Bode:
>>
>>> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all?
>>
>> Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages.
>
> Oh yes, per Policy.

It checks if the *license* meets certain criteria.  But anybody can
take someone else's code, pretend it's their own, slap a new license
on it, and put it on the Net for download.  The result is typically a
copyright infringement.  The purported license statement doesn't tell
you this, of course.

>> I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper
>> compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions
>> from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got
>> statements in writing to the contrary).
>
> So far, Debian has provided a some form of assurances by means of the
> copyright file shipped with every package,

The copyright file is just what upstream provided.  If it's wrong,
Debian will make the same false claims.

In some cases, packages contain contradicting license claims, which
are discovered after some time (see #328923 for an example).  But if
no such claims exist, it's unlikely that we'd spot a copyright
violation.

> and cryptographically signed by the package maintainer (i.e. myself
> in the case of Ada packages).

In a couple of weeks, indeed. 8-)

But in reality, Debian provides few developer-to-user guarantees.  The
.changes files are awfully hard to get, and I'm not sure if those for
binary-only NMUs are archived at all.  But this is completely
off-topic here.

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[M E Leypold]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> > So far, Debian has provided a some form of assurances by means of the
> > copyright file shipped with every package,
> 
> The copyright file is just what upstream provided.  If it's wrong,
> Debian will make the same false claims.

But if upstream is the copyright holder one would expect it to be
legally binding noneless. You cannot (bad analogy) sign a contract
with you bank and after some time decide, that the sugnature has been
"wrong". The same applies to adding copyright statements to your
product: It is a declaration of intent and as such should have legally
binding force. Just your tough look if you weren't awake enough when
you did that. 

So as a first approximation I'd say: Declaration of intent -> legally
binding. Proofability is another matter altogether, but there is often
a number of witnesse which could state that the downloaded the very
same file with exctly these copyright notices.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Simon Wright]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> - TASH, the Tcl Ada SHell [6], includes a binding to Tk; it is
>   available as a Debian package, under GMGPL, from Ada-France [7] and
>   AdaWorld [8].  TASH is portable, but has not been updated since
>   2003.

TASH is in the process of moving to SourceForge at 
http://tcladashell.sourceforge.net/ 

I welcome anyone who wants to join in! My interest is in extending
Tcl/Tk with commands written in Ada so as to eg have a Tk gui to an
Ada application, rather than using Tcl features in Ada applications,
so there's a gap there ...

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Matthew Goulet]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
> Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
> servers.  In summary:
>
> ...
>
> - AdaBindX [3], a binding to X11 and LessTif by Hans-Frieder Vogt
>   which is under GMGPL.  X11 is under X11 (MIT) license, and
>   LessTif[4] is under LGPL.  But AdaBindX has not been updated since
>   2000, and is not portable.  And not as good-looking as GTK+.
>   According to Debian's Popularity Contest [5], this package has zero
>   users, so I am tempted to drop it from Etch.  Speak up if you want
>   me to keep it.
>
> ...
>
> Thoughts, comments, offers to help?
>
> --
> Ludovic Brenta.

Hello there,
  Long time listener, first time caller, so to speak.  Just wanted to
say I've found this whole thread quite interesting and intructive, even
though the subject itself still contains so much doubt.

  Also I wanted to say to Ludovic specifically, I'm actually someone
who's using the AdabindX libraries.  Perhaps I'm the only one :-)  As
for popularity contest, I use noatime, so it doesn't work for me.
Regardless, one person isn't enough reason to keep a package, but I
nevertheless wanted to say thanks for all the work on GNAT for Debian.

  I hope to be able to post meaningfully here in the future, its nice
to read postings with intellect, especially about my favorite language
:-)

-Matt

Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

[Ludovic Brenta]

Thanks, Matt.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.