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

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

=?windows-1252?Q?Bj=F6rn_Persson?= <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes:

> The answers I have managed to get from Adacore are quite different from
> what Ludovic and Markus have reported. These answers are far from crystal
> clear, but the best way I can interpret them is as follows:
> 
> · There is *not* a policy that license statements in files headers and
> readme files shouldn't be believed.
> · Their licensing policy hasn't changed in any significant way. (Yeah
> right!)
> · They think all the license statements in the packages accurately reflect
> the license you get.

This sounds far better than anything else I've heard here.

> When you download the libraries bundled with Gnat GPL, you get a pure
> GPL for the whole bundle.

Ok.

> As for what license you get when you download a library separately: No
> comment.

They could really be a bit clearer in this section.

[Quote from email answer from Adacore staffer] (I hope no one thinks
this is quoted out of context)

> People are allowed to say whatever they like on c.l.a, nothing we can do
> about this. That may have been a reference to a discussion about the
> legal value of copyright statements appearing at the top of source files
>    that you download over internet in general. I am not a lawyer, not
> even an expert myself so I won't make any comment on that specific issue
> but there is nothing specific nor different about the libre site in that
> respect.

So if it works for other FOSS projects (license-in-header) it works for
Adacore too. Good.

[Quote from 2nd email answer from Adacore staffer]
(I hope no one thinks this is quoted out of context)

> I am not implying anything. I am just stating that our policy has not
> changed in any significant way: the Libre site has always been dedicated
> to Free software developers and has always been advertised this way very
> clearly. It has always been AdaCore's position that anything coming from
> the libre site was not suitable for non-Libre development. This is why
> the site was named that way and why the landing page takes some real
> estate for explaining this. We will consider clarifying yet more.

What Libre site are we talking about? Does "has not changed in any
significant way" imply "since we opened libre2..."? Quote from
http://web.archive.org/web/20050330084052/http://libre.act-europe.fr/
(old Libre site):

  The tools and software that you can download from this site are
  intended for developers of Libre Software, students, teachers and
  hobbyists. If you are planning to develop software in a commercial
  setting (as Libre Software or otherwise) services are available to
  save you time and company money. Contact sales@adacore.com.

So commercial developers can save time and money if they buy a service
contract. That's reasonable. It's not at all clear that they *have* to
do that to develop CSS at all.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050203211706/libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/

  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.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050208062827/libre.act-europe.fr/xmlada/

  This library is released under the standard GNAT Modified GNU Public
  License (GMGPL). As usual, it is provided as is, without any
  guarantee or support. We do not recommend using of this package in a
  commercial application. If you are interested in using a supported
  version of this library suitable for commercial applications, please
  contact sales@adacore.com

If nothing has changed since then, fine.

(Of course technically speaking web.archive.org is also only rumor)

If someone from Adacore reads this and it is not too much an effort,
any private or official comments are welcome.