Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[michael bode <michael.bode@laserline.de>]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> > I imagine Linus Torvalds answering millions of requests if kernel
> > x.y.z *really* is GPL or maybe something else because license notices
> > in the sources "have no legal force". He will send you to hell.
> 
> What is "legal force"?

If my memory does not fail me "legal force" is the term used in
remarks about the "special exception" in GtkAda header files beeing
irrelevant to the license under which GtkAda-programs can
be distributed.

> (I Can't speak for Linus.)

Me too, but would *you* like to answer several millions of such
enquiries?

> > So *if* one would believe the "no legal force" thing, the logical
> > consequence is to use commercial shrink-wrap EULA software and avoid
> > OSS at any cost.
> 
> Why should EULicenseA be different from GPLicense in this
> regard?

Because then typically you get some piece of paper (or some original
media with hologram) with "Certificate of Authenticity" with the
written license terms and I've never heard of a case where the vendor
would claim his own EULA irrelevant. Anyway it is much easier to prove
that this piece of paper or hologram CD came from $VENDOR than that
some .tgz file was downloaded before $DATE-$TIME. Especially if
$VENDOR refuses to tell you $DATE-$TIME.