Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux

[Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>]

In article <ek2Y4.340$q86.98777@news.pacbell.net>,
  tmoran@bix.com wrote:
>   I fully agree.  How frequently does either position actually
> occur?  I don't know of anybody who sells software with the
> requirement that you cannot redistribute under any
> circumstances.  Even Microsoft allows retailers and system
> vendors to redistribute their software.  The
> cirumstances, of course, include paying Microsoft royalties.

Seems like sophistry to me. The license does NOT permit any
redistribution. Microsoft retailers do NOT redistribute copies
in the sense we are talking about. Yes, system vendors can
redistribute software under special licenses, but I was talking
specifically about the typical license. FOr example, if you
buy a copy of PowerPoint, you MAY NOT redistribute copies of
this copy under the license you received, so yes, it happens
all the time. In fact I assume that CLAW, being a proprietary
product in this sense, also comes with a license that forbids
unrestricted redistribution.

>  It's true that I understand the GPL to say that you cannot
> "freely" redistribute what you receive

Well you misunderstand, if you receive a software package under
the GPL, you are absolutely free to redistribute what you
receive. Restating your misunderstanding repeatedly does not
change that it is a misunderstanding. After a while I have to
wonder why you are insisting on repeating this false statement.
The whole idea of the GPL in connection with freely distributed
products like GNAT is not only to permit, but to encourage
such secondary distribution.

d.  As I (mis?) understand it, if you
> redistribute, there are certain requirements, ie, you are not
> free to do whatever you want.

In terms of redistributing the original that you received,
assuming the original distribution was legal (i.e. conformed
to the GPL), then yes, you can freely redistribute what you
received. How many more times does this need to be said? It
happens all the time with GNAT. People grab the file from
cs.nyu.edu, and then send copies of that file to their friends
or put it up on their own site. That is perfectly fine and
perfectly in accordance with the GPL.

As I said in my note, the requirement for distributing sources
comes into play when deriviative works are created, a whole
different ball game.

> Perhaps the restriction that you must include a sentence
> pointing to where the source can be found is not an onerous
> one in the usual case, but it *is* a restriction on "freely".

You really *insist* on this misunderstanding I guess.
There is no requirement for you to include a sentence of this
nature if you are simply redistributing what you received
assuming that this information was present in the original.
(which it most certainly should be).

>   To construct a thought experiment, suppose you write a study
> guide for the SAT.  To let your readers test themselves, you
> include on a CDROM the
> binary of a GPL'ed SAT simulation program.  As I understand
> it, you
> haven't fulfilled the requirements.

Let's assume you are NOT the original author of the simulation
program here (the original author is of course not restricted
in any way by the GPL, if you do not understand that, you are
really at sea -- a license *I* issue cannot restrict me!

Assuming that, the distribution of the GPL'ed SAT simulation
program is a copyright violation on its face.

<<irrelevant stuff snipped>>

(irrelevant since it simply seems to be an argument that the
GPL is not the right license to use in this situation. So
what? What's that have to do with it? Have you seen me argue
that all software should be distributed under the GPL? The
answer is no you have not, since I have never made such a
statement.)

> If you offer a product that is, or uses, GPLed software, are
> you effectively required to charge for support?

AARGH! This is so far off base that I don't know what to say.
I guess I will just say no and leave it at that

> If you don't, and some
> users have made "just a little improvement", you face a heck
> of a lot of support time tracking down their "just a little
> mistake"s.

Again, completely out of left field. Just because you offer
a product which is GPL'ed does not create any support
obligations at all. If you do offer support, then the
terms and conditions of the support will deal with the
issue of modifications. This is not something new with the
GPL, mainframe software has often been issued with full
sources, with the understanding that the customer may
(or even must) make changes, and then the support agreement
has to spell out the obligations on both sides.

In the case of GNAT, our support is premised on use of the
binary versions that we distribute. In the cases where
customers make changes, we continue to support on a best
efforts basis, or in some cases, special support agreements
are arranged.

This is all really quite simple, I can't understand why you
are making such heavy weather of it, unless your goal is
simply to encourage people to agree that it is complex.
Certainly I understand that you (or rather the company you
work for) have decided to use restrictive licenses, and that
is definitely your privilege, and may indeed be the best
choice for you, since I know nothing about your business I
could not comment.

But the GPL model is quite simple, and works very well for us,
and is really not that difficult to understand. These days we
even find that procurement agents at companies like
Lockheed Martin understand it quite fine :-) :-)

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.