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?

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2018-05-04, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:36:10 AM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> >> 
> >> It's not that it doesn't show up _ever_, just that it may well not show
> >> up in FSF until the next major release. Depends how significant it is
> >> (and how much work it would be).
> >
> > Everyone, what is the minimum, typical, and maximum latencies that you
> > have observed from the time that an AdaCore GNAT Pro paying customer
> > receives a bug fix or new feature in the GNAT compiler or its runtime to
> > the time that that bug fix or new feature appears in FSF GNAT?
> >
> 
> One data point:
> 
> I have never been able to build a GNAT compiler for VMS Alpha from
> the FSF sources even though AdaCore did offer a GNAT Pro version for
> VMS.
> 
> I don't know if this is due to missing bits in the FSF sources or my
> missing out a critical step (VMS has some unique build requirements).
> I have successfully built both GNAT compilers and GNAT cross-compilers
> in the past however for other targets so I am well familiar with the
> overall process.
> 
> >
> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 7:35:42 AM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >> In particular, the FSF cannot just pull code from the AdaCore code base
> >> and re-licence it under the terms of the FSF codebase without the
> >> permission of AdaCore. AdaCore have to push code into the FSF code base.
> >
> > On precisely what legal basis could AdaCore assert its rights of
> > ownership under the GMGPL or under the USA's copyright law?  Precisely
> > which clauses & sentences in the GMGPL permit AdaCore any ownership of
> > derivative works of files whose rights to copy were assigned to FSF long
> > ago?  Under precisely what legal basis would FSF as irrevocable assignee
> > not be the owner of files whose rights to copy (and distribute GNAT Pro)
> > were assigned to FSF years ago?
> >
> 
> The question I would ask is whether the FSF were assigned control of
> the master copy of GNAT or whether they were assigned control of a
> copy of GNAT which is updated at regular intervals from a master
> copy controlled and owned by AdaCore.
> 
> I've always thought it to be the latter, but I am willing to be
> corrected.

I believe only the original Air Force contract with New York University would reveal whether your interpretation is correct.  If that contract stipulates that all files paid for in the original $3 million contract must have their rights to copy immediately assigned to FSF, then it is as I speculate.  If that contract  allowed NYU to own the files prior to a donation step at the point of delivery to the Air Force and/or public, then your interpretation would be correct.

Does anyone have a copy of that contract between the Air Force and NYU?

> I've always thought of it of something like the situation where a vendor

  Isn't the “vendor” (as sole true owner) here FSF as irrevocable assignee of all rights to copy?

  Perhaps the original vendor was NYU if the contract did not require immediate assignment of rights to copy to FSF, but rather only at the out-bound moment of delivery.  As I understand it, NYU's Ada9X compiler under that Air Force contract is a derivative work of NYU's Ada83 compiler source code.

> releases software they control under an open licence but then closes
> the source for later versions. This is something the vendor is able
> to do because the vendor still owns the code even if they released
> the earlier versions under an open licence.

Does AdaCore own the source code?  That is the key question.  If AdaCore owns the source code to GNAT compiler and runtime, wouldn't the file prologues of GNAT's source code in some repository or distribution somewhere anywhere read Copyright AdaCore Technologies, Inc instead?

> All the vendor isn't allowed to do in that case is to revoke the
> licence for the earlier versions.
> 
> IOW, my impression

  The key word there is:  impression.  I doubt that the Air Force contract with NYU for Ada9X mentions the word “impression”.

> has been that AdaCore owns the GNAT source code
> even though they make a copy of it available to the FSF and that
> copy can be controlled by the FSF under the FSF licence.

Impression is not mentioned in the GMGPL the last time that I checked.  I am pretty sure that USA's copyright laws are not predicated on impression.  Your line of reasoning would be more convincing if you were to quote chapter & verse from the GMGPL or United States Code statutory law.