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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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: "Jeff Creem" Subject: Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux Date: 2000/06/05 Message-ID: <8hhhej$mp2$1@pyrite.mv.net> X-Deja-AN: 631526274 References: <8h9r89$n5d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8haraq$k3j$1@pyrite.mv.net> <8hf6bi$73b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mv.com X-Trace: pyrite.mv.net 960252179 23330 199.125.99.136 (6 Jun 2000 00:42:59 GMT) Organization: MV Communications, Inc. X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jun 2000 00:42:59 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-06-06T00:42:59+00:00 List-Id: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 First let me start off by saying that I only jumped into this because I find the whole area of software licensing interesting (apparently I am getting old and bizzare or something). So in my prior postings (and Roberts response) we have : > In article <8haraq$k3j$1@pyrite.mv.net>, > "Jeff Creem" 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 iQA/AwUBOTxJiS7VRsN7h5LhEQKJPACgzjDM+RVlkdeFe3h2HPHSwuDhiQoAoJTn 4anPf5Nkg+eVkdhngS8ji/1V =uSnz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----