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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: <8grdg2$pgh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Deja-AN: 628266690 References: <8gppqa$og7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x58.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 15:20:43 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: > 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 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.