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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a24:ed6:: with SMTP id 205-v6mr13627110ite.10.1525383749044; Thu, 03 May 2018 14:42:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:445c:: with SMTP id f28-v6mr1767162otj.2.1525383748677; Thu, 03 May 2018 14:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!f199-v6no969541itd.0!news-out.google.com!b185-v6ni1176itb.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no973293itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 14:42:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87d0yc1lsq.fsf@nightsong.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <9c3a75d6-a01f-4cfa-9493-10b8b082ead8@googlegroups.com> <114db2c4-1e8c-4506-8d7c-df955dd9f808@googlegroups.com> <87d0yc1lsq.fsf@nightsong.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Precisely why can't official FSF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtime en masse from GNAT GPL Community Edition? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 21:42:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51948 Date: 2018-05-03T14:42:28-07:00 List-Id: On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:17:30 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Dan'l Miller" writes: > > Precisely why can't official FSF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes =E2=80= =A2=E2=80=A2and > > brand new features=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2 in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtim= e en masse from > > GNAT GPL Community Edition? >=20 > I thought the licenses were incompatible. They appear to be 100% compatible: FSF appears to be quite able to overrid= e at will AdaCore's removal of the Runtime Exception. Apparently nothing s= tops FSF from doing so; just mechanically turn the legal crank of various c= lauses in GPLv3, so therefore no incompatibility. I am claiming that =E2= =80=A2=E2=80=A2no one other than=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2 FSF or an official actor= therein (e.g., perhaps an official maintainer; certainly an officer/member= of the 501(c)(3)) can re-license files to which FSF is the irrevocable ass= ignee. > The FSF runtime has the GPL > runtime exception and the GNAT runtime does not. Speaking just for > myself, I'd expect the FSF to not accept such a feature if it was aware > of the issue with its licensing. >=20 > You also asked I asked no such thing. I made logical statements regarding merely turning = the crank of logic and plain-English meaning of English prose. Statements = are not questions. I did in fact ask a quite different question: Precisel= y why [in the license, in case law, in judicial precedent] can't official F= SF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtime en m= asse from GNAT GPL Community Edition? > what would happen if the FSF accepted the feature without > being aware of the issue, then found out about it later. That doesn't > seem different than if someone contributed code that they weren't > entitled to contribute (e.g. they wrote it at work, and didn't get the > contribution cleared by their employer). Again IANAL but ISTM that once > the FSF found out, they'd have to say "oops, despite our efforts to > check out the license of the contribution before we accepted it, it > somehow got past us so we have to withdraw the code since it's not > really ours But the rights to copy have already been irrevocably =E2=80=A2assigned=E2= =80=A2 to FSF, so in fact it really truly is FSF's at some point prior to A= daCore releasing GNAT GPL Community Edition. > to release under those terms." That doesn't sound > conceptually different to me than when someone uploads an unlicensed > song to Youtube and then Youtube has to take it down. The rights to copy the song were not assigned to the uploader. The right= s to copy the song were not assigned to YouTube. Non sequitur. > I'd also add that again I'm speaking just for myself, but ISTM that the > FSF is a pro-GPL organization whose goal is for all of the world's > software to be GPL. It sometimes uses non-GPL licensing such as the > LGPL and the library runtime exception for specific programs as tactical > maneuvers in pursuit of the larger goal, like in chess, where you might > sacrifice a pawn to get closer to checkmating the other player's king. So are the official maintainers of FSF GNAT merely expendable pawns in the = game? Should someone tell them about their apparent status? > So I wouldn't expect it to go looking for ways to circumvent Adacore's > choice of the pure GPL. It *likes* the GPL and is unlikely to see > GNAT's use of the pure GPL as being bad. >=20 > Anyway, when you =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=9D =3D AdaCore here? > go around trying to subvert someone else's =E2=80=9Csomeone else=E2=80=9D =3D FSF here? > licensing > choices like you seem to be proposing, you're also inviting the rest of > the world to subvert *your* licensing choices. It's better to stay > clean, I would say. Remember, wasn't AdaCore the party who removed the FSF's Runtime Exception = via a script =E2=80=A2after=E2=80=A2 AdaCore irrevocably assigning the sour= ce code to FSF? Who is doing the subverting of whose license-choice on fil= es for which who owns the right to copy under assignment? Answering these = questions truthfully is quite awkward.