Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

["Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com>]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0107301935.721c1842@posting.google.com...
> "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in
message news:<9k3ui1$ql1$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
>
> > To a large extent, this is provided under the Ada Developers
> > Cooperative License.
>
> Perhaps, but that's a MUCH more restrictive license than the GPL.
> Certainly any company that does not like the GPL is going to like
> that even less.
>
Well, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on newsgroups, but...

My understanding of the ADCL was that one of the key features was the lack
of "Infection" that happens under the GPL. You can use the source, modify
it, compile it into your systems, etc. and you are under no obligation to
open up your part of the contribution if you don't feel like it. That is at
least one sense in which the ADCL is less restrictive.

I'll grant you that reserving some sort of financial rights for the
copyright holder is definitely more restrictive than the GPL. But one can
think about it in this light: I can "pay" by paying financially for the
software I get from someone else and resell or I can "pay" by having to turn
my software loose because I included someone else's software in with it.
Either way, you're giving up something of intrinsic value in order to
utilize the source code of another. Which is more "restrictive"? Like
"value" it is in the eye of the beholder.

Which way is better? I don't know. I suspect that each has its advantages
and disadvantages in various settings. I do know that some companies have
shied away from the GPL because they fear having to make their sources open
in order to utilize GPLed code. I also know that companies routinely pay
fees of one sort or another in order to utilize someone else's software in
their end product. One size is not going to fit all.


> > The ADCL is a lot less restrictive than the GPL in the sense of
> > enabling use by a wide variety of people - it just
> > reserves some financial rights in some rather limited cases.
>
> Well it's a matter of point of view, from my point of view restricting
> redistribution rights in any manner is a very significant restriction,
> and the ADCL qualifies neither as Open Source, nor as Free Software
> under the usual definitions (see the relevant web sites for
> definitions of these terms).
>
How it qualifies by some definition of "Open Source" or "Free Software" I do
not know since I don't think either of those terms comes with a single,
patented definition. :-) Yes, there is a kind of common usage and maybe by
that common usage ADCL doesn't qualify. So what? The question ought to be
"Can I use this software in a manner that helps me move my mission forward?"
Maybe in a lot of cases ADCL does that.

You definitely have more experience in the legal aspects of this than I do,
so I'm perfectly willing to bow to your superior knowledge on this subject.
My understanding of the ADCL (which, BTW, does not seem to have a complete
form at this stage and also lacks the infrastructure necessary to make it
work) is that the intent is to let you freely copy and utilize Ada source
code. AFAIK, there is nothing in it to stop you from downloading a copy of
the source, compiling it in your environment, modifying it in any way you
like, including it as part of your own work or giving copies of it to your
friends and associates. The only restriction I see in it (and I'll admit I
may be wrong) is that if you include it in some work that you sell for $$$,
you have to give some of those $$$ to the copyright holder(s). By way of an
anti-restriction, you get the benefit that if you use ADCL software in your
product, you are in no way forced to also make your software ADCL or give
the source to anyone unless you just plain feel like it.

That's a feature of the GPL that I find offensive - attempting to force me
into doing something I may not find in my best interest in order to use some
software someone else wrote. Its insidious because at stage 1 of development
I may not see it as a problem but at stage N of development I may discover I
have something I don't want to make "Open Source" for all kinds of good
reasons - only now its too late because I'm already "infected".

Granted, the copyright holders have every right to do anything they like,
but it leaves it to me to say "I'd rather buy the right to use some
subsystem and not have anybody thus claiming some kind of easement into *my*
property than use it free of charge and thus have the GPL police looking
into what is my own personal business." Its the camel getting its nose under
the tent flap - use of one GPLed subroutine gives access to my million SLOC
labor. Hmmmmm.....

> But ultimately the real point here is that copyright holders can
> decide their own licensing conditions, I doubt any discussion, least
> of all
> among the habituees of CLA, is going to have epsilon effect on the
> license that people choose to use for the software they create.

Absolutely and Yeah Verily! A copyright holder can do anything he likes with
his copyright. And given the variety of circumstances in which copyrights
exist I don't think it is right to characterize various levels of
restriction as "good" or "evil". (Sometimes I get the feeling that advocates
of GPL or other less restrictive licenses regard any sort of restriction on
use of someone else's software as "evil" - sort of "I want it free and if
you won't give me the fruits of your labor free, then you are an evil
person!")

Most people don't object to the idea that a book publisher or a movie
producer or a recording artist has a right to make a buck from his own work
and that to copy that work without permission and/or some form of
remuneration is a kind of "theft". Why does it get regarded as a different
matter when it comes to computer software?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/