Commercial license?

Commercial license?

[Victor Porton]

I retell that am going to release UniParser as both GPL and XXX.

Question: what commercial license XXX would be appropriate for
a commercial Ada library distributed with source (forgotten 
redistribution, per developer or site license)? Well, forgotten
redistribution of additional components of the commercial edition.

Maybe for Ada software I need to say something special about 
reliability, not a typical "NO WARRANTY"? Well, now it is alpha.

Re: Commercial license?

[Jeffrey Creem]

If you are looking for something
"Victor Porton" <porton@ex-code.com> wrote in message
news:E18riJl-0007FK-00@porton.narod.ru...
> I retell that am going to release UniParser as both GPL and XXX.
>
> Question: what commercial license XXX would be appropriate for
> a commercial Ada library distributed with source (forgotten
> redistribution, per developer or site license)? Well, forgotten
> redistribution of additional components of the commercial edition.
>
> Maybe for Ada software I need to say something special about
> reliability, not a typical "NO WARRANTY"? Well, now it is alpha.


I think the term you want is not commercial but rather proprietary.
There is nothing about the GPL that makes it not commercial.

In any case, it is possible that most (all?) proprietary licenses might
themselves
be copyrighted so you may not be able to use someone else's license text as
your own.

Try looking at other people who have dual licensed their source code (like
www.rrsoftware.com)
They have a package called claw with both GPL and something more like a
standard
proprietary license.

Re: Commercial license?

[John R. Strohm]

"Victor Porton" <porton@ex-code.com> wrote in message
news:E18riJl-0007FK-00@porton.narod.ru...
> I retell that am going to release UniParser as both GPL and XXX.
>
> Question: what commercial license XXX would be appropriate for
> a commercial Ada library distributed with source (forgotten
> redistribution, per developer or site license)? Well, forgotten
> redistribution of additional components of the commercial edition.
>
> Maybe for Ada software I need to say something special about
> reliability, not a typical "NO WARRANTY"? Well, now it is alpha.

Assuming that you mean "commercial" as in "I intend to make money off of
this", then the appropriate answer is "You should hire an attorney with
appropriate knowledge and experience and pay him money to write a license
that does what you want."  This is called "being in business".

RE: Commercial license?

[Robert C. Leif]

Please go to Newporinstruments.com and switch to Ada_Med or directly to
http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html and download the
first item, which is the latest version of the ADA DEVELOPERS COOPERATIVE
LICENSE.
As for a warranty, if you use a validated Ada compiler, you can warranty
that you used a validated Ada compiler and if the library is written in 100%
Ada, you could also warranty that. In other words, although I am not a
lawyer, I believe that one can warranty absolutely true statements.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Porton [mailto:porton@ex-code.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 9:41 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Commercial license?

I retell that am going to release UniParser as both GPL and XXX.

Question: what commercial license XXX would be appropriate for
a commercial Ada library distributed with source (forgotten 
redistribution, per developer or site license)? Well, forgotten
redistribution of additional components of the commercial edition.

Maybe for Ada software I need to say something special about 
reliability, not a typical "NO WARRANTY"? Well, now it is alpha.

Re: Commercial license?

[Victor Porton]

In article <mailman.0.1047236933.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
	"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> Please go to Newporinstruments.com and switch to Ada_Med or directly to
> http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html and download the
> first item, which is the latest version of the ADA DEVELOPERS =
> COOPERATIVE
> LICENSE.

Should I provide on my Web site this license including or excluding 
introductory section "0"?

Re: Commercial license?

[Victor Porton]

In article <mailman.0.1047236933.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
	"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> Please go to Newporinstruments.com and switch to Ada_Med or directly to
> http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html and download the
> first item, which is the latest version of the ADA DEVELOPERS =
> COOPERATIVE
> LICENSE.

What to do with "??" in the license 3.0, e.g. in 1.27. Should I edit 
these by myself and mark as a modified Ada Cooperative license or what?

Re: Commercial license?

[Victor Porton]

In article <mailman.0.1047236933.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
	"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> Please go to Newporinstruments.com and switch to Ada_Med or directly to
> http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html and download the
> first item, which is the latest version of the ADA DEVELOPERS =
> COOPERATIVE
> LICENSE.

Are there anywhere in Internet a concise informal reformulating of what 
is said in the license itself? From the first glance it is even not 
simple to understand whether the license permits binary commercial 
(arbitrary licensed) software using a library licensed under ADCL?

Also they say something about that I can request a percentage of money
from profit of selling such a software. Yes? Would this not prevent
customers from buying my software?!

Re: Commercial license?

[Marin David Condic]

I think there is a problem with this license that may preclude your using it
at the moment. While I like the concept of the ADCL, there is at least one
problem with it. As of this point in time, there is no Ada Developer's
Cooperative to do the administration called for in the license. It possible
that this could be solved, but until it is, you may have a problem trying to
honor the terms of the license.

Ultimately, I see the ADCL as a kind of "Blocking License" - it allows one
to use the software up to the point where there is some sort of financial
gain at stake and then it calls for revenue sharing. IMHO, this would likely
mean that nobody would use the software for commercial purposes because it
would be cheaper to re-develop it in house than it would be to share the
revenues with the original developer. (At least under the rates I had
originally seen in the license - one could always renegotiate the rates.)

I'm wondering if there is a license similar to the ADCL in the respect that
it would allow someone to use the software and share the software with
others, but forbid any usage in which commercial gain is involved.
(Including value-added situations, like bundling it "free" with some other
product for sale.) I'd like to release some software under terms like this
with the notion that if you were using it at home or at work for your own
business, great, but if you start making money with it, you need to come
negotiate another license with me. Does such a license exist?

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Victor Porton <porton@ex-code.com> wrote in message
news:E18sGKp-0000VI-00@porton.narod.ru...
>
> Should I provide on my Web site this license including or excluding
> introductory section "0"?

RE: Commercial license?

[Robert C. Leif]

I would include the preamble. If you want add a statement that it is not
nominative. The license can also be tailored and certainly can be improved.
I would like to organize a group to work on the license. Besides the text of
the license, we need an ASIS program to calculate the contributions of the
individual developers. I might add that I believe there is real money to be
made, particularly in the creation of Ada powered XML technology. I still
believe that there are very significant advantages to the commercial
software creators of providing their sources.
I suggest that if a group of Ada capitalists can be assembled, we could
start our own mailing list.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Porton [mailto:porton@ex-code.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:00 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Commercial license?

In article <mailman.0.1047236933.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
	"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> Please go to Newporinstruments.com and switch to Ada_Med or directly to
> http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html and download the
> first item, which is the latest version of the ADA DEVELOPERS =
> COOPERATIVE
> LICENSE.

Should I provide on my Web site this license including or excluding 
introductory section "0"?

RE: Commercial license?

[Robert C. Leif]

Please note that members are required, in order to have an Ada Developer's
Cooperative. The present draft has always been subject to amendment,
enhancement etc. Any suggestions will be reviewed and every reasonable
effort will be made to include them.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Marin David Condic [mailto:mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org] 
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:13 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Commercial license?

I think there is a problem with this license that may preclude your using it
at the moment. While I like the concept of the ADCL, there is at least one
problem with it. As of this point in time, there is no Ada Developer's
Cooperative to do the administration called for in the license. It possible
that this could be solved, but until it is, you may have a problem trying to
honor the terms of the license.

Ultimately, I see the ADCL as a kind of "Blocking License" - it allows one
to use the software up to the point where there is some sort of financial
gain at stake and then it calls for revenue sharing. IMHO, this would likely
mean that nobody would use the software for commercial purposes because it
would be cheaper to re-develop it in house than it would be to share the
revenues with the original developer. (At least under the rates I had
originally seen in the license - one could always renegotiate the rates.)

I'm wondering if there is a license similar to the ADCL in the respect that
it would allow someone to use the software and share the software with
others, but forbid any usage in which commercial gain is involved.
(Including value-added situations, like bundling it "free" with some other
product for sale.) I'd like to release some software under terms like this
with the notion that if you were using it at home or at work for your own
business, great, but if you start making money with it, you need to come
negotiate another license with me. Does such a license exist?

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Victor Porton <porton@ex-code.com> wrote in message
news:E18sGKp-0000VI-00@porton.narod.ru...
>
> Should I provide on my Web site this license including or excluding
> introductory section "0"?

(MAIL) Re: Commercial license?

[Victor Porton]

In article <mailman.13.1047325768.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
	"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> Please note that members are required, in order to have an Ada =
> Developer's
> Cooperative. The present draft has always been subject to amendment,
> enhancement etc. Any suggestions will be reviewed and every reasonable
> effort will be made to include them.
> Bob Leif

What are requests for the memebers? Anybody what does not consider the 
low volume (I think) mailing list as a SPAM?

If so I desire become a memeber.

Well, what we will do with the received source code which should be 
sent to the cooperative?

P.S. I've not yet read the ADCL do the end.

RE: Commercial license?

[Robert C. Leif]

I believe that the license permits binaries for the end product. Obviously
if you are supplying a library, it must be in source.

Please see http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html
SIGAda 99, Workshop: How do We Expedite the Commercial Use of Ada?
SIGAda '98, Workshop: How do We Expedite the Commercial Use of Ada?
The 2001 Workshop indicates what to make.
SIGAda 2001 Workshop, "Creating a Symbiotic
Relationship Between XML and Ada"
Bob Leif
-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Porton [mailto:porton@ex-code.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 11:42 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Commercial license?

In article <mailman.0.1047236933.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
	"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> Please go to Newporinstruments.com and switch to Ada_Med or directly to
> http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html and download the
> first item, which is the latest version of the ADA DEVELOPERS =
> COOPERATIVE
> LICENSE.

Are there anywhere in Internet a concise informal reformulating of what 
is said in the license itself? From the first glance it is even not 
simple to understand whether the license permits binary commercial 
(arbitrary licensed) software using a library licensed under ADCL?

Also they say something about that I can request a percentage of money
from profit of selling such a software. Yes? Would this not prevent
customers from buying my software?!

Re: Commercial license?

[John R. Strohm]

LOOK, PEOPLE.

A license is a LEGAL DOCUMENT.

It is written in a language that superficially resembles English, but in
fact the resemblance stops there.

A license MUST be drafted by a knowledgeable professional, with expertise in
the subject area.  Doing anything else is foolhardy.

The community here can provide input, state requirements and goals, and
participate in the discussion, but the actual work must be done by a
competent attorney.

I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, and part of my education was learning that I
wasn't a lawyer and should consult one when it was appropriate.

"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.12.1047325019.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
I would include the preamble. If you want add a statement that it is not
nominative. The license can also be tailored and certainly can be improved.
I would like to organize a group to work on the license. Besides the text of
the license, we need an ASIS program to calculate the contributions of the
individual developers. I might add that I believe there is real money to be
made, particularly in the creation of Ada powered XML technology. I still
believe that there are very significant advantages to the commercial
software creators of providing their sources.
I suggest that if a group of Ada capitalists can be assembled, we could
start our own mailing list.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Porton [mailto:porton@ex-code.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:00 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Commercial license?

In article <mailman.0.1047236933.32742.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
> Please go to Newporinstruments.com and switch to Ada_Med or directly to
> http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/ada_med.html and download the
> first item, which is the latest version of the ADA DEVELOPERS =
> COOPERATIVE
> LICENSE.

Should I provide on my Web site this license including or excluding
introductory section "0"?

Re: Commercial license?

[Marin David Condic]

Lots of contracts that are used every day - even in very large business
transactions - are not written by lawyers. I'd hazzard a guess that most
software licenses have not seen the inside of a law office either.
Basically, its a way of defining an understanding between two parties and it
doesn't always need a lawyer involved. Especially if the stakes aren't
terribly high - which I suspect is the case for most of the software that is
hanging around on the various web pages here.

However, I would agree that if anyone has any serious software efforts at
stake, getting a lawyer to review the license is a wise and prudent act.
Lawyers won't guarantee you won't have any problems, but they sure will
minimize those odds.

I think Dr. Leif's ADCL was proposed as a matter for consideration and one
that would presumably go through some itterations of refinement and
commentary. I would imagine that if an Ada Developer's Cooperative were to
be formed, it would need to consult an attorney concerning the provisions of
its license.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

John R. Strohm <strohm@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:8E197C72ED293700.9CFD1DCB25CB0B4C.812DA03615AB7642@lp.airnews.net...
> LOOK, PEOPLE.
>
> A license is a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
>
> It is written in a language that superficially resembles English, but in
> fact the resemblance stops there.
>
> A license MUST be drafted by a knowledgeable professional, with expertise
in
> the subject area.  Doing anything else is foolhardy.
>
> The community here can provide input, state requirements and goals, and
> participate in the discussion, but the actual work must be done by a
> competent attorney.
>
> I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, and part of my education was learning that
I
> wasn't a lawyer and should consult one when it was appropriate.

Re: Commercial license?

[Georg Bauhaus]

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
: Obviously
: if you are supplying a library, it must be in source.

How is that? Am I missing something?

Re: Commercial license?

[Preben Randhol]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
>: Obviously
>: if you are supplying a library, it must be in source.
> 
> How is that? Am I missing something?

If you look at the GNAT compiler it needs the source code for Ada
libraries. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is what he was referring to?

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_ug_unx/Creating-an-Ada-Library.html

-- 
  ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
 +||-.
.+--+'
'+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Commercial license?

[David C. Hoos]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Commercial license?


> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> > Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
> >: Obviously
> >: if you are supplying a library, it must be in source.
> > 
> > How is that? Am I missing something?
> 
> If you look at the GNAT compiler it needs the source code for Ada
> libraries. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is what he was referring to?
>
Not true.  The facts are that if you provide a library, the only source
you need to supply is that for the specifications -- not the bodies,
in order for the library to be used.  Thus, it is possible to keep
the implementation proprietary.
 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_ug_unx/Creating-an-Ada-Library.html
> 
> -- 
>   ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
>  +||-.
> .+--+'
> '+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
> 

RE: Commercial license?

[Robert C. Leif]

I agree. However, it must first have more than one member.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Marin David Condic [mailto:mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:46 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Commercial license?

Lots of contracts that are used every day - even in very large business
transactions - are not written by lawyers. I'd hazzard a guess that most
software licenses have not seen the inside of a law office either.
Basically, its a way of defining an understanding between two parties and it
doesn't always need a lawyer involved. Especially if the stakes aren't
terribly high - which I suspect is the case for most of the software that is
hanging around on the various web pages here.

However, I would agree that if anyone has any serious software efforts at
stake, getting a lawyer to review the license is a wise and prudent act.
Lawyers won't guarantee you won't have any problems, but they sure will
minimize those odds.

I think Dr. Leif's ADCL was proposed as a matter for consideration and one
that would presumably go through some itterations of refinement and
commentary. I would imagine that if an Ada Developer's Cooperative were to
be formed, it would need to consult an attorney concerning the provisions of
its license.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

John R. Strohm <strohm@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:8E197C72ED293700.9CFD1DCB25CB0B4C.812DA03615AB7642@lp.airnews.net...
> LOOK, PEOPLE.
>
> A license is a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
>
> It is written in a language that superficially resembles English, but in
> fact the resemblance stops there.
>
> A license MUST be drafted by a knowledgeable professional, with expertise
in
> the subject area.  Doing anything else is foolhardy.
>
> The community here can provide input, state requirements and goals, and
> participate in the discussion, but the actual work must be done by a
> competent attorney.
>
> I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, and part of my education was learning that
I
> wasn't a lawyer and should consult one when it was appropriate.

RE: Commercial license?

[Robert C. Leif]

A commercial program can be though of as having two layers. It parts
(libraries) and the final binary, which is sold to the end customers. The
developer of the program should know what is in the parts. The normal
customer only needs the binary to execute the program. This is analogous to
a computer board. The normal end customer purchases the board and really has
very little knowledge about the chips. The board designer must have detailed
knowledge about the chips.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Georg Bauhaus [mailto:sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:36 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Commercial license?

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
: Obviously
: if you are supplying a library, it must be in source.

How is that? Am I missing something?

Re: Commercial license?

[Stephen Leake]

"David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> writes:

> From: "Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org>
> 
> > Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> > 
> > If you look at the GNAT compiler it needs the source code for Ada
> > libraries. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is what he was referring to?
> >
> Not true.  The facts are that if you provide a library, the only source
> you need to supply is that for the specifications -- not the bodies,
> in order for the library to be used.  Thus, it is possible to keep
> the implementation proprietary.

If the library has generics, then the compiler needs the bodies of the
generics as well. 

Ditto for inlined subprograms.

-- 
-- Stephe

RE: Commercial license?

[Robert C. Leif]

Although this is, in principle, true, it is much easier with present Ada
compilers, such as GNAT, to supply the source. Some of us had to suffer with
attaching binary libraries with the old Alsys Ada compiler. 
Since I am proposing a license, which would compete with the GNU licenses, I
want to maintain what I believe to be the best part of the GNU approach, the
availability of the sources. 
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: David C. Hoos [mailto:david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:26 AM
To: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway
Subject: Re: Commercial license?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Commercial license?


> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> > Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
> >: Obviously
> >: if you are supplying a library, it must be in source.
> > 
> > How is that? Am I missing something?
> 
> If you look at the GNAT compiler it needs the source code for Ada
> libraries. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is what he was referring to?
>
Not true.  The facts are that if you provide a library, the only source
you need to supply is that for the specifications -- not the bodies,
in order for the library to be used.  Thus, it is possible to keep
the implementation proprietary.
 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_ug_unx/Creating-an-Ada-Library.html
> 
> -- 
>   ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
>  +||-.
> .+--+'
> '+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>