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,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151436486.2179.48.camel@localhost> <1151438973.2179.67.camel@localhost> From: M E Leypold Date: 28 Jun 2006 03:18:27 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.243.222 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151457132 88.72.243.222 (28 Jun 2006 03:12:12 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5169 Date: 2006-06-28T03:18:27+02:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 21:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > > > Debian is distributing the software. If at some later point in time it > > is claimed that the software today was not under GPL but some other > > license which forbids distribution they have a problem. > > Yes, they will have a problem if someone accuses them of distributing > software they weren't allowed to distribute. But... > > > Seems like > > this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. > > I'm not so sure. First, I don't think that the maintainers of Ada > stuff in Debian will have a problem. By design, they never distribute > anything without providing access to the source code as well. > So GMGPL or GPL is not a legal issue at all from a Debian maintainer's > perspective, as long as the issue is whether it is GPL or GMGPL. May I play the sweet melody of damages ACT might (in extremis) want from the Debian maintainers (not that I believe that, but you were the one starting to analyze the legal situation). Debian has distributed the packages in question under a license which is probably more liberal than ACT would have it to be. Other used them in good faith in proprietary software. Two parties now have problems: The ones whose software is now suddenly open and ACT whose software has been used "illegally". Don't fear: I don't have that situation, I'll not sue or whatever. But proposing that Debian could not have incurred some liability is a bit naive. So Debian is right to go the safe way, even if that just illustrates the power of FUD. > Now if you wanted to make a claim that in spite of messages from > AdaCore officials to the contrary, software downloaded from the > AdaCore site is neither GPLed nor GMGPLed, then I think everyone > will be eager to hear what else it is. In a year from now? Who knows. You see: Files in the ditro and file headers are not binding. E-Mails from ACT probably have a similar ephemeral status if not signed with strong crypto. So you'll never know what the future brings. > > > > to collect all available evidence, > > > and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it. > > > > They only can collect bits which are not signed with strong crypto.> > I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of > paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel. > This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates, > is GPLed. Would you believe it? No. On the other side I think, that MS would take action on that very soon, when it becomes public, whereas the GtkAda source has been in public with ACTs knowledge for quite a time. They know what the headers say since version 1.3.x and I find it not creditable that they never wondered about their meaning, sort of. Implied consent? Regards -- Markus