Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de>]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:

> Just trying to find some vaguely relevant post to hang this on...    :-)

I'll answer anyway :-)

I work for a company, so my boss decides over licensing, not me. I
would have no problem with GPL.

> 1) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it, either over the
> internet or in a shrinkwrapped box.  Okay, so what's the problem?
> You're making money.  Unless it's some trivial program, or your target
> market is developers, _nobody_cares_ that the source code is
> available.  Put it on the CD or DVD--the accountant who bought your
> tax prep program isn't going to rebuild the executables.  Worse, it's
> in Ada, who's going to set up an Ada development environment to
> rebuild it?  :-)

The problem here might not be the source code but the redistribution
of the binaries. Sell 1 copy, have 1 million users. Of course the same
applies to EULAed software, then it's called piracy.

> 2) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it to customers with
> whom you establish an ongoing support relationship.  If it's a
> non-technical product, see (1).  If it's technical and they are
> interested in source code, verbally _request_ that they not
> redistribute the distribution, e.g., AdaCore customers.
> Alternatively, verbally notify them that if they redistribute the
> source you will not renew their support contract, i.e., Red Hat
> Enterprise customers. 

How do you know whose support contract is it that you won't renew?

My main problem and the only thing I feel I have reason to complain
about is that it seems AdaCore might be changing licenses secretly,
deceiving users by false statements in file headers and maybe doing
this in a retroactive way (GtkAda). At least I'm not the only one who
thought GtkAda was GMGPL simply because this is explicitely written in
every single spec file of the package (except 3 files belonging to
gate).

Also I find the position that any statements about licensing in files
distributed with software or in file headers are invalid more than
disturbing. If we subscribe to this, GPL is totally fucked up. Imagine
Linus signing GPL certificate letters to Linux users for the rest of
his life.

-- 
Michael Bode