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-Thread: 103376,ed34204f6da15e19 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!56fb6cac!not-for-mail From: "Marc A. Criley" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released References: <44916CA0.9080909@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:29:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.153.87.171 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1150662568 4.153.87.171 (Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:29:28 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:29:28 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4815 Date: 2006-06-18T20:29:28+00:00 List-Id: 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