Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

David Trudgett <wpower@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> The end user of a compiler is the developer, so what you say is
> false, unless you define freedom as the freedom to license one's own
> software under the GPL.

But we're not talking about the license of the compiler here.  We're
talking about the license of the run-time library, which changed from
GMGPL to pure GPL.

And whether you like it or not, if you write software that links with
libgnat, your software is a "work based on" libgnat.  This is true
even if you don't use any compiler to write that software, i.e. even
if you do

cat > a.out

and a.out uses libgnat, then a.out must be GPL.

Therefore, your comparison with emacs or compilers is besides the
point.  The point is the license for the *library*.

> I have made it quite clear that the mere fact of linking the
> compiler's run-time with a non-GPL program (even a proprietary one),
> in no way impinges upon the freedom of that library, nor does it
> endanger its future continued freedom.

You only have made it clear that you didn't read the GPL.  Also, you
are in no position to decide whose liberty has or has not been
impinged; only the authors of libgnat are in that position.  It is
their right and prerogative to allow or disallow certain ways to
modify, copy or distribute libgnat.  Take it or leave it.  We are
voting on this forum to decide whether Debian sould take it or leave
it.

> But even with a chair, I cannot sell it to someone and demand that
> it only be used by black people, or that it can only be sat on
> between the hours of six and nine in the morning, or that it can
> only be used at home and not in a place of business. It would be
> morally outrageous to even suggest it, even if you had made the
> chair yourself.

Copyright law is quite clear on this.  The copyright holder has the
right to restrict copying, modification and distribution of their
work; not usage.

> This is even more the case with software, which can be shared
> virtually limitlessly without diminishing anyone else's use of it.
> The whole commercial software industry as it exists today is based on
> the use of violence to enforce artificial scarcity on a resource which
> is, by its very nature, virtually limitless. This is immoral, and
> certainly unchristian.

Precisely.  By your own argument, you should therefore be a big
promoter of the pure GPL for all software and libraries.  One od the
things that the pure GPL disallows is linking a GPL library into a
proprietary program, the artificial scarcity of which is organised by
the program's author.  The GPL says: "thou shalt not make non-free
software".

> And on a different point, how does the GPL "impose" requirements if
> not by the violence of law? So, Stallman seems to like the idea of
> "Free Software" but doesn't mind using violent coercion (the
> antithesis of freedom) to get it. I would say that's getting pretty
> close to hypocritical, but I give him the benefit of the
> doubt. After all, I've used the GPL myself, but do not intend to use
> violence to enforce it (but even that policy may have to be
> reviewed).

Welcome to the real world.  All freedoms must be fought for and
defended with some violence, lest the law of the strongest prevail and
all freedom be banished.  Amen :)

> On an only somewhat related note, one thing that I will definitely
> *not* be doing in future is including the "or later versions" (of
> the GPL) in any of my licence files. I have concluded that it is of
> the utmost stupidity to effectively give one man (or even very few
> people) the power to unilaterally make arbitrary changes to the
> licensing terms on a whole world of software. Do people really have
> that much faith in the continued integrity of one person?

The GPL version 3 is being worked on *in public* and *everyone* is
welcome to comment on it.  Of course, as an author, it is your right
and prerogative not to allow GPL version 3.

> A couple of points need to be made about that. Everyone has the right
> to free speech, regardless of whatever local laws may pretend to
> say. You may call such free speech "complaint" if you like, but
> everyone *does* indeed have a right to it. 

Okay, I concede that, but this does not make AdaCore liable to you for
their decisions.  Complain all you want, they don't have to listen.

> Second, no one has *demanded* anything of AdaCore. People have
> requested an explanation, and they think it reasonable to not only
> request it, but to receive it. I have pointed out that it will not
> look good for AdaCore to refuse an explanation in this case. This
> still does not make it a *demand*, it simply points out consequences
> (which may or may not be correctly predicted, but that is another
> matter).

Fair enough.  I suspect that AdaCore do not care about the
consequences to non-customers, but that's just my opinion.

> As for deciding what to do about it: by all means! But this does not
> preclude multi-tasking: we can voice disapproval, ask for
> explanations, *and* do something about it. I think there is even
> special Ada syntax for doing more than one thing at a time, isn't
> there? :-)

yes :) and besides we're doing all three in this thread, and even
going into philosophical arguments :)

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.