Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

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

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> The reasons why the headers have no legal force, and for the blanket
> approval above, according to Robert Dewar at FOSDEM 2006, are:
> - because anyone besides the copyright holder may have changed them in
> the software.

This is simple to fix:

s/look into the headers/look into the headers as they are at $URL/
where $URL refers to a server under control of the author.

> - because license terms can change with the weather, or be different
> for each licensee. They can even change after a licensee has had a
> license for some time.

There is also a simple fix:
When you change the license also change the version, so that

$VERSION < x.y => $LICENSE = A
$VERSION >= x.y => $LICENSE = B

It could be even clearer if you host a public accessible CVS
repository. And of course do proper documentation.
 
> In the case of AdaCore, there is past evidence that suggests, but does
> not prove for lack of crypto signatures, that AdaCore is indeed the
> copyright holder of most of the software they offer on their CVS or web
> servers (but not GNAT itself, which belongs to the FSF). I think that
> AdaCore could successfully convince a court that they are indeed the
> copyright holder. If that's the case, then they are the ultimate
> authority on the license terms.

I've no doubt they are.

> The problem is that AdaCore have destroyed confidence in the license
> terms they apply to their software.

Exactly.

> My interpretation of the license change is this:
> 
> - if I download anything from AdaCore, I receive it under the terms of
> the pure GPL, no matter what the headers say. I have a statement from
> them in my records to back this claim (unfortunately, it is not
> crypto-signed, so one could argue it has no legal force either :))
> 
> - the software I downloaded in the past, and which is now in Debian
> Sarge, was under the terms of the GMGPL, and by these terms I am
> allowed to redistribute this software under GMGPL terms. I think this
> is correct because AdaCore has not explicitly revoked my GMGPL license
> to this old software (I also have emails on record to back this claim).

It would be much cleaner if they would simply put out a new version of
their libs with the headers cleaned up to what they want the license
to be. Then version 2.4.0 = GMGPL and 2.x.y = GPL. And for their
paying customers they call it 2.x.y.Pro or whatever and make it GMGPL.

Now since they have a CVS server where you can even today get 2.8 with
GMGPL headers, then 2.x.y must be > 2.8. That's bad luck for them but
I doubt it would hurt them too much.

> The software in Sarge is crypto-signed with my GPG key, do if you get
> the software from Debian, you have assurance that *I* am redistributing
> the software to *you* under the GMGPL terms.

According to one interpretation of the GMGPL that was discussed here,
this would be illegal if your are not the author. I would say this is
a rather stupid interpretation but IANAL.

> But let me reiterate: I don't think AdaCore will sue anyone. In fact,
> this whole ongoing conversation is evidence that several people are
> going out of their way to be really, really honest and respectful of
> AdaCore's copyright, and trying to understand the ramifications. I know
> many people who wouldn't be so considerate.

And let me clarify that Adacore can do what they want with their
software but please they should do it in a clear way. (And if they
would ask me: let the libs be GMGPL :-))

> Actually, the situation of the Linux kernel is quite uncertain, as
> there are many copyright holders, not all of whom can be reached, and
> it would be impossible to get assurances for every bit of the kernel.
> But, as for the portions that Linus owns, I think it would be easy to
> convince a court that he is the copyright holder.

My point was that free software does work with downloads from the
internet and license terms written in header files and not with
hologram CDs and license terms written on paper with Authenticity
Certificates and stickers with metal threads. If you want to abolish
the license in the header files, some guys from the more popular
projects will get some massive paperwork to do.

> No; the problem remains the same whether or not the software is free or
> open-source. You can buy pirated copies of Microsoft Windows,
> shrink-wrapped, in China and other places, or you can get pirated
> software bundled with a new computer from some small vendors.

Ok, you have to look here 
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/howtotell/en/default.mspx
if you got counterfeit products, but this is a different thing than
proving the date of the download of some .tgz.

> So, theoretically, you are still and always responsible for getting
> a proper license statement from the copyright holder.

You get one. It's in the box or on the hologram CD.