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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a24:5350:: with SMTP id n77-v6mr930613itb.11.1525456896823; Fri, 04 May 2018 11:01:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:24a1:: with SMTP id z30-v6mr20065ota.4.1525456896633; Fri, 04 May 2018 11:01:36 -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!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!v8-v6no1653866itc.0!news-out.google.com!b185-v6ni2135itb.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no1653863itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 11:01:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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> <878t901jp4.fsf@nightsong.com> <38dddb6a-0e6f-4dcb-ade2-241528b61288@googlegroups.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: Fri, 04 May 2018 18:01:36 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51982 Date: 2018-05-04T11:01:36-07:00 List-Id: 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: > >>=20 > >> It's not that it doesn't show up _ever_, just that it may well not sho= w > >> 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 t= o > > the time that that bug fix or new feature appears in FSF GNAT? > > >=20 > One data point: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > > > > 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 bas= e > >> 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 bas= e. > > > > 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 lon= g > > ago? Under precisely what legal basis would FSF as irrevocable assigne= e > > not be the owner of files whose rights to copy (and distribute GNAT Pro= ) > > were assigned to FSF years ago? > > >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 wou= ld reveal whether your interpretation is correct. If that contract stipula= tes that all files paid for in the original $3 million contract must have t= heir 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 a= t the point of delivery to the Air Force and/or public, then your interpret= ation 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 =E2=80=9Cvendor=E2=80=9D (as sole true owner) here FSF as irrev= ocable assignee of all rights to copy? Perhaps the original vendor was NYU if the contract did not require immed= iate 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 Ai= r 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 ow= ns the source code to GNAT compiler and runtime, wouldn't the file prologue= s of GNAT's source code in some repository or distribution somewhere anywhe= re 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. >=20 > IOW, my impression The key word there is: impression. I doubt that the Air Force contract = with NYU for Ada9X mentions the word =E2=80=9Cimpression=E2=80=9D. > 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 a= m 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 chapte= r & verse from the GMGPL or United States Code statutory law.