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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit 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!news.belwue.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!feed.news.schlund.de!schlund.de!news.online.de!not-for-mail From: Michael Bode Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:47:51 +0200 Organization: 1&1 Internet AG Message-ID: References: <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <449d2a28$0$11075$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <449d5c03$0$11074$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p54af2b13.dip0.t-ipconnect.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: online.de 1151261272 14151 84.175.43.19 (25 Jun 2006 18:47:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@einsundeins.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:47:52 +0000 (UTC) X-message-flag: IMPORTANT MESSAGE -- PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY!!! X-Accepted-File-Formats: ASCII, .rtf, .ps, .pdf - *NO* MS Office files User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5009 Date: 2006-06-25T20:47:51+02:00 List-Id: "Marc A. Criley" 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