Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released

["Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com>]

Simon Wright wrote:
> I'm slightly out of the loop on this one, since my paid work has an
> AdaCore support contract; for my own OSS work, my position is:
> 
> * code meant for a user to include in her product, GMGPL
> 
> * code intended for tutorial/example/prototype, no restriction
> 
> * code that's part of the toolset, GPL

Though I've not explicitly codified it before as a position, these bullets 
are consistent with my approach, though I might perhaps be a little more 
explicit by adding:

  * code _available_ for a user to include in her product(s), GMGPL

These covers the situation for XPath In Ada (XIA) and XML EZ Out, which 
were written because of DTraq, but since they have areas of application 
beyond that product were broken out on their own for community use.

> As a potential customer of yours, I would want the part of your code
> that's linked with mine in my product (your runtime) to be GMGPL,
> regardless of the compiler you use to develop it[1].

Which it now is.  I removed the GNAT dependencies from that code, which was 
primarily the replacement of GNAT.Sockets with AdaSockets, so as to get 
GMGPL instead of GPL (for GNAT GPL 2005 and beyond).

> Unless I've misunderstood DTraq, though, the recorder side _isn't_ in
> the same boat, it's not intended to be released to my customers; so
> the licence terms aren't so crucial. Clearly the binary distribution
> terms have to match the compiler runtime, but why should the source
> code?

That is true, the source code license terms aren't so crucial, the code 
could turn out to be tailored for a specific compiler and runtime, but 
distributed solely as source code, and therefore merely "inherit" the 
licensing of the RTL with which it is linked.  I opted for GPL on the DTraq 
core components because it gave me the most flexibility:  I could use 
AdaCore's free software releases, GNAT GPL 2005 and now 2006; I can 
utilitize any GPL or GMGPL or LGPL licensed software that I find useful; 
and I don't have to worry about tracking what software is under what 
license and who might "own" portions if modifications or enhancements were 
done under contract.

> That said, I can't see any reason why the 'instrumenter' and
> 'recorder' parts of DTraq shouldn't be pure GPL anyway, since they're
> not intended to be part of my distribution; and even if they were I
> could comply with GPL terms for them without affecting my own
> product. I guess it might be different if my work and the recorder
> were integral parts of my overall product, but that doesn't seem very
> likely.

The 'recorder', i.e., the DTraq Logging Server is pure GPL. The 
'instrumenter' portions, DTraq.Tap, et.al., could be GPL, but their removal 
would be required before the distribution of your product if you're 
licensing with something less than GPL.  However, I've suggested that the 
instrumentation be retained in the product because the taps can be disabled 
and your product run without a logging server present, and that way you 
retain the ability to run a deployed application in a remote debug or 
monitoring mode.  And also, if your app requires integrated logging, DTraq 
can fill the bill for that as well.

> [1] Do you think there's any issue with generated code? One might
> think that fragments of text copied into generated code could carry
> licence implications with them.

 From the DTraq perspective this is not an issue because the only part that 
would be at all likely to show up in generated code would be 
_instantiations_ of DTraq.Tap, and the GMGPL already covers that.

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada -- XML EZ Out