From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a2c7f6cbdb72aa16 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux Date: 2000/05/28 Message-ID: <8gppqa$og7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 628103949 References: X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x65.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun May 28 00:38:35 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 2000-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , tmoran@bix.com wrote: > "Anyone may use in any way" is not restrictive. "You must > send money > to ___ if you give out copies to third parties" and "You must send source > code to ___ if you give out copies to third parties" are both restrictions. I will repeat what I said earlier, I think there is a significant and important distinction between the position that you cannot redistribute under any circumstances, and the position that you can freely redistribute what you received! The above second restriction is *NOT* an accurate characterization of the GPL restrictions. If you get a copy of something under the GPL, you can freely redistribute it. To fulfill the requirement for distributing sources, you can simply point to the original distribution. For example, if you download the public binary version of GNAT, you can freely redistribute it to others, you do NOT have to distribute the sources yourself (the GPL never requires distribution of sources along with the objects, it just requires they be made available). So when you pass on the binaries, people can get the sources from the original location (e.g. cs.nyu.edu) and that's just fine. Tom, you seem to bat almost 100% when it comes to misinterpreting the GPL. Time to reread it carefully :-) Like any software license agreement, it needs careful reading! To be fair, you did not mention the GPL in the above, but I am willing to bet it is what you had in mind when you wrote: "You must send source code to ___ if you give out copies to third parties" The restriction that Tom alludes to above is a different one. It affects only derived works. Here the restriction is that if you create derived works (not permitted at all with typical proprietary software), then you can still distribute them, but you must distribute your mods in source form (e.g. as a patch file). Once again, with regard to the use of the word proprietary. There is a very big difference between Free Software that permits unrestricted redistribution and guarantees that the sources are always available, and typical software (e.g. from Microsoft or Ada vendors other than ACT) that significantly restricts or forbids redistribution. Usually people use the term proprietary software to refer to the latter. I don't really care what term people use, just so long as they recognize the distinction! People are still often confused by this distinction. Some months ago, I had to spend quite a bit of time on the phone explaining to a procurement guy at Lockheed that he did NOT need us to execute a source escrow agreement, because we had already supplied all the sources, and Lockheed had all the access that they would get from opening a source escrow (and more) already. Finally he understood, and agreed that "OK, I guess we don't need a source escrow in that case" :-) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologiesh Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.