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

["Jeff Creem" <jcreem@atetola.mv.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

First let me start off by saying that I only jumped into this because
I find the whole area of software licensing interesting (apparently I
am
getting old and bizzare or something).


So in my prior postings (and Roberts response) we have :

> In article <8haraq$k3j$1@pyrite.mv.net>,
>   "Jeff Creem" <jcreem@atetola.mv.com> wrote:
>
> > I know in cases I have been concerned about, I have had to
> stay away
> > from libraries that are pure GPL (not talking about GNAT here)
> for my
> > projects
> > since there are projects where portions of the source code are
> classified
> > (by
> > the government).
>
> Absolutely! An author who decides to use the unmodified GPL
> is most definitely making the decision that you CANNOT use
> the software in this manner without negotiating a separate
> license. And that's the author's right under current
> copyright law.


Ok..Seems fair..And it is exactly what I always assumed one of
the ramifications of the unmodified GPL was (and again I understand
that an author is well within their rights to set these limits)..

But then curiously to one of my misconception ramblings we have this:

>
> > that if
> > some third party approached the company and said that they
> wanted a copy
> > of program X from us that we would have to give it to them
> (but we could charge a fee)..
>
> This is complete nonsense. But it is a VERY common
> misconception. The GPL never forces you to distribute
> a program. If ACT suddenly decided to make no more public
> versions available, that would be perfectly in accord
> with the GPL requirements. As I have said many times before
> the fact that ACT makes public versions available is not
> required by the GPL, it is simply something that ACT decides
> to do for the general good of the Ada community.


Hmm..But if that were the case then my first problem would be
no problem at all since I would have given source and binaries
to a customer who owns the secrets and I dont have to
give it to anyone else and neither do they..

My common misconception problably comes from the following
text from the GPL
"
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed
only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the
program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in
accord with Subsection b above.)
"

So..If I ever once send someone a binary without source code sure
seems to me that for the next
three years I must give source to any third party for a nominal
fee...




>
> > Perhaps this is just another misconception..A while back a
> > sent e-mail to FSF asking specific
> > questions about  the GPL in this and other areas...I got some
> > answers but
> > the rest of the
> > reply said these are hard questions and I got no answers...
>
> There is absolutely NO reason to expect the FSF to provide
> you with free legal services. The fact that they did answer
> some of your questions is entirely up to them.

I agree..And my comment was not meant to say disparage the FSF
in any way however the FSF wants to promote "free" software. There
are theses licenses GPL and LGPL and based on discussions I have
seen I would bet that more than half of the people who put source out
there under the GPL or LGPL have no idea what terms they are
actually releasing the source under...Granted this is their problem..

Note that when I sent e-mail to them asking for help I did offer to
send them
a contribution (of course it would not have been enough to pay for a
lawyer since
I was looking into this for personal reasons).


>
> > We do of course have our own legal department that could look
> at these (and
> > has) but
> > I am often concerned that they give me answers for what the
> believe they can
> > get
> > away with based on the licenses and not what the original
> intent of the
> > license is. (again
> > another personal belief that is probably wong).
>
> You always have to ask your own lawyers what you can and cannot
> do under a license if it is not clear to you!
>


Again my point here is that lawyers will tell me what the license
says I can
do which is important from a legal point of view (and for example, I
neither could nor
would use something if my legal department said I could not)...But
there is another issue here which
is intent...It may be that the specific wording of a license allows
something but it could
be that the author never intended for it to allow it...For lawsuits I
am interested in the former..
For sleeping at night and looking in the mirror I am interested in
the latter.


Jeff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOTxJiS7VRsN7h5LhEQKJPACgzjDM+RVlkdeFe3h2HPHSwuDhiQoAoJTn
4anPf5Nkg+eVkdhngS8ji/1V
=uSnz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----