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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7bcba1db9ed24fa7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-16 08:38:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <67F27.14089$Kf3.151364@www.newsranger.com> <5ee5b646.0107101433.fedfed8@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0107110830.1a134d7e@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0107140605.5c5d76eb@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Contributing patches to GPL Ada projects (was: Is Ada dead?) Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:38:48 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:38:48 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9995 Date: 2001-07-16T15:38:48+00:00 List-Id: In article <5ee5b646.0107140605.5c5d76eb@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar says... > >You miss the point entirely, the issue is not whom you distribute to, >it is the conditions under which you distribute (that's what Free >Software is about, the manner of distribution). And proprietary Yes, but if you don't distribute at all, I don't think it qualifies as either Free Software, or proprietary. >this definition definitely does not apply to ACT, the GNAT system If you have ever created software which you didn't distriibute to anyone, then you are in the same boat as us (whatever you want to call it). >Is the copyright on your software really held jointly by the US >Government and a private company? I doubt it, that would be very >unusual, I think you are talking about data rights, not copyright >here. When I was at LMC, I understood that our contracts usually had us deliver the sofware to the DoD as DoD-owned software, allowed them to also keep relatively unencumbered copies for themselves under their own copyright. This was for non-classified work. I wasn't really aware of these issues when I was doing classified work, but I suspect we wouldn't have had a need for, or a desire for keeping copies of classified software around after delivery. I was told we have a similar situation here, but a closer look at our headers reveals a different story altogether. Currently, our files appear to contain no explicit copyright notice, although there is the name of the company and project at the top. However, there is an interesting "distribution notice" (which I imagine would be completely incompatable with the GPL, were that an issue). Note that RAC is our customer, not my employer. -- DISTRIBUTION "D": Distribution authorized to Department of Defense (DOD), -- Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC), and DOD subcontractors only to protect -- technical or operational data or information from automatic dissemination -- under the International Exchange Program or by other means. This protection -- covers information required solely for administrative or operational -- purposes, date of document as shown hereon 3 April 1998 ASC/YTK. There's also a legal note. I'm a bit unsure how the GPL interacts with such laws. Since its not a license clash, but rather a legal one, I'd think it would still allow you to distribute with a GPL-licensed product (if it weren't for the other clause above). You'd just be subject to prosecution if you gave it to the wrong person or entity. -- WARNING: This document contains technical data whose export is restricted -- by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U. S. C. 2751 et seq) or -- Executive Order 12470. Violation of these export control laws is subject -- to severe criminal penalties. Dissemination of this document is controlled -- under DOD Directive 5230.25 I hope that law doesn't prevent us from separately selling these things to the Greeks, because that's what we are right now in the process of doing... I'm guessing (and this is just a guess), that the company name at the top creates a copyright in my company's name alone, despite the fact that it doesn't explicitly assert copyright. Thus, despite what I was told verbally and repeated here, handing it to any other party constitues a "distribution". The "Distribution D:" clause is essentially a (non Free) license. I guess that's what I get for not reading "the sources". :-) Note for the record though, that we are *not* using Gnat as our Ada compiler. To get things a little more back on subject, my main complaint about making the XML parser GPL (with no exemptions) is that there's no incentive for outside professionals to contribute to it, as they won't be able to use their own work on future (presumably proprietary) paid projects. I do understand perfectly that this is a rather selfish complaint (if you turn your head and look at it just right), except I'm personally not really all that intersted in XML. I've yet to be convinced that it isn't the new "Java" on the hype machine. Generally I just see it used for databases, for which CSV would be much better served and is much better supported. So you can indeed trust that when I make these comments I'm making them as an Ada supporter and Free Software developer, not as someone who's just itching to create all kinds of proprietary stuff for free with your XML software. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com