Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0

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

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> "What if..." question tend to introduce FUD. 

FUD is correct but it is not introduced by questions but by statements
like that quoted in my post.

> I think you will have no trouble finding quite definite statements
> that AdaCore, like other Ada shops, make sure that their customers
> won't have any licensing issues.

I don't have trouble finding definite statetements about non-customer
licenses too. Example:

  This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified
  so that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The
  license is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should
  also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary
  software based on gtk and GtkAda.

The problem is they are fluctuating in time. What makes you so sure
other statements have higher time-invariance?

> As Hyman Rosen has said, it will be judges making judgments on the
> licensing state of software based on available evidence etc.
> This requires a case.

That's right. But I'd like to avoid beeing party in such a case.

> All of this might not appear in c.l.ada. :-)

Maybe on Groklaw ;-)

-- 
Michael Bode