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: 2000/05/29 Message-ID: <8gtvhf$g59$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Deja-AN: 628612072 References: <8grdg2$pgh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x54.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 29 14:40:50 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 2000-05-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , tmoran@bix.com wrote: > >The license does NOT permit any redistribution. Microsoft > I think you mean "the kind of license typically given to an end > user allows him to run, but not redistribute, the program". > And > other licenses, typically given to retailers, allow > redistribution That's just completely wrong. You are inventing, and you are inventing wrong. Don't guess and publish it as fact :-) A retailer buys a copy of a program like Power Point. Now under 117, the retailer owns a copy of the progrma (not the program itself but a copy). The retailer is free under the copyright law to sell this copy to someone else (if you buy it, you inherit this right, and can then sell your unopened copy to someone else.) This right comes from the copyright law, not from any license. In fact the vendor never executes any license agreement with regard to this particular copy of Power Point (there may be a separate sales contract, but that's different). If you sell your unopened copy, you also never execute a license agreement (the shrink wrap license comes into effect only when the shring wrap is opened). > and still others given to system vendors may > allow a variety of different things. Yes, that's right, see the Microsoft trial for many details about such licenses. > The point is, your > statement > sounds like a general one about licenses (or at least "proprietary > software" licenses) but in fact it's a specific statement about > just one kind of license, and in that way misleading. I am talking about end user licenses, and have always made that clear. yes, system vendors do have other licenses. Retailers do not, that's just a Moran invention :-) > If you receive a cake, are you free to redistribute it only in > its entirety, For sure in its entirety, which is in practice the critical issue, and is what distinguishes it from proprietary products like CLAW. I realize that you are trying to minimize the difference here Tom, but it is really a VERY important difference, and trying to obfuscate this fact does not change the fact that there is for example a very big difference between CLAW and GtkAda here. > Does it allow you to examine the software, decide it has > a very low probability of bugs, and then to redistribute it > backed with a warranty? Yes, of course. Why are you asking questions like this whose answer should be obvious if you read the license. These questions seem designed to obfuscate. > Your "absolutely free" is in fact a freedom > with very definite Noone said you are absolutely free to do anything you want. That's an invention on your part. > and sometimes onerous, restrictions, and in > that way misleading. Onerous in one case in particular, which is the case where a proprietary software vendor wants to redistribute a derived work in proprietary form. For example, I quite see that the CLAW folks might like to use GtkAda to make a proprietary version of CLAW for non-NT targets. Well they definitely cannot do this. > Is it really practical to offer GPLed software with source > code > and support like "We offer no-cost support for this product, > as > long as you have made no changes. If you have changed anything, > it makes it harder for us to help you, so you must pay $xxx for > support. Yes, it is practical, and basically that is the situation at ACT, we support GNAT as we distribute it, and will fix any problems that are found. If you want us to guarantee to fix problems in versions you have modified, we can do this but we definitely write specialized (more expensive) support contracts in this place. What on earth would make you think it is impractical? It is the only approach that makes sense. > If you say you've made no changes, and we spend time > helping you, and it turns out you have in fact made changes, > then > you must $yyy for the time we've spent." I suspect that in > practice, ie, "effectively", you will find that you *must* charge for > support, or you'll lose a lot of time and money giving free > support to some people who create problems and then lie about > the source of those problems. You know nothing about distributing GPL'ed software and supporting it, because you have never done it. I suggest people take the actual experience of those who DO distribute GPL'ed software over the suspicions of someone with no experience at all. I quite understand the kind of arguments people like Tom (CLAW) use to justify choosing to go the proprietary route, but these arguments are often misinformed, as in this case. This does not mean that it is wrong to choose the proprietary route, but certainly uninformed suspicions should not be the basis for the decision. > >Certainly I understand that you (or rather the company you > >work for) have decided to use restrictive licenses, and that > Calling other people's licenses "restrictive" and your own > "absolutely free", is not, IMHO, a fair statement of the case. I understand how those who have chosen a proprietary route would like to minimize the differences, since they have a commercial interest in doing so, but in trying to make this argument, you should not exaggerate. Only *you* have called the GPL absolutely free. All I said was that one characteristic of the GPL is that you are absolutely free to redistribute what you received. By this I mean redistributing the entire product, I am not talking about deriviative works. It is definitely the case that the GPL is like the Microsoft License in that, for example, both ACT and MS are selling copies of copyright license with a license that places restrictions on the user. For more details on this, see the transcript of the GEAC vs GRACE trial in Newark Federal District Court, where I testified in detail on this point (the attorney for the other side being confused like Tom :-) The difference is in the qualitative nature of the restrictions. The reason that lawyers find the GPL odd as a license agreement is that it reads as being more interested in ensuring what the user CAN do than what they CANNOT do. If you can't see that CLAW has a much more restrictive license than GtkAda (I am choosing vaguely competing products here), then you are deluding yourself, and you will not serve your customers well by this delusion. As I said earlier, companies choose licenses to best meet their interests. No one ever said that the GPL is the right license for everything. In fact as you should know well, Ada Core Technologies considers the GPL to be unsuitable for a considerable chunk of the technology (including the Ada runtime and ASIS for example). Customers choose products on many factors, including the license. Some license provisions are important some are not. Actually for most of our customers, the redistribution right is not particularly relevant, big companies are not in the business of doing extra work to distribute copies of software to their potential competitors. For them, what is important about the GPL is the accessibility of the sources, and the open source nature of the technology in terms of development. To repeat, I have absolutely no criticism of the decision to use a proprietary license, by which I mean a license that is considerably more restrictive than the GPL, and in fact more akin to the Microsoft license, for CLAW. Many, in fact most of our tool partners (including the CLAW folks) choose to license their software in this manner. There are definitely arguments that can be made that this helps increase revenue to the company involved. Whether these are correct arguments or not depends on the circumstances. Certainly the automatic assumption that a proprietary license increases revenues is suspect. However, it is really not possible to construct an argument that a more restrictive license is beneficial to your users (other than perhaps arguing that it decreases costs). In terms of user benefits, a more permissive license is a clear win in all terms. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.