* Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 @ 2006-07-21 19:18 M E Leypold 2006-07-22 16:06 ` Michael Bode ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-07-21 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Dear All, To make it short: A member of the sales departement of AdaCore has written a mail to me, which at least tries to stipulate that even the older (pre 2005 versions) of GtkAda can only be used under the GPL. Which can only mean: The linking exception has been revoked, that happening at a unspecified time in the deep past and silently so. The Details: ============ Distribution and Licensing History of GtkAda -------------------------------------------- The distribution history of GtkAda as far as I can reconstruct it, has been the following: - GtkAda 1.x and GtkAda 2.x up to and including version 2.4.0 have been distributed from libre.act-europe.fr with a GMGPL license notice at the web site and a not quite so clear license notice in COPYING and README and quite clear GMGPL notices in most (almost all) of the file headers. - GtkAda 2.2.1 is up to this day linked from Freshmeat with a GMGPL license notice and is actually served from libre2.adacore.com. - Newer versions of GtkAda are distributed from libre2.adacore.com by two protocols: CVS and http(s). The web site does not carry a license notice. - Per HTTP GtkAda 2.4.0 is distributed standalone and carries the same notices in the files as the "other" version from old libre. GtkAda 2.8.0 is distributed by HTTP as part of Gnat-GPL and is as such included in the GPL license notice of the GNAT-GPL distro. The header files have been supposedly stripped of the linking exception (I don't remember wether I checked that personally or wether I'm relying in other peoples contribution in this single item: If it makes a difference, please check yourself). - Both versions 2.4.0 and 2.8.0 and all/most of the older versions are distributed by CVS with the license notices identical to the pre 2005 status when everything was under GMGPL. - AdaCore has answered requests by the Debian maintainer, that all Software distributed from libre2 is under pure GPL. Despite the fact that they are using the word "downloaded" in answers to my own requests rather often, I think it is quite clear that the CVS versions are supposed to be included in that: The CVS-Server is located at libre.adacore.com. Clarification Requests to AdaCore ---------------------------------- Since the AdaCore statements on the licensing terms have always been somewhat fuzzy in the recent past (see the absence oif notices instead of clear license notices at the sit) and, interestingly enough, the license notices in the (supposedly) GMGPL and the (supposedly) GPL versions have been the same, I've been trying to elicit a statement from AdaCore on this sameness, on the licensing history of GtkAda, basically to establish - when the license switch actually happened, - how GPL source can be distinguished from the GMGPL source in an effort to establish a last GMGPL baseline from which (depending on the prevailing needs) either - existing projects can be maintained with that version - existing projects can be migrated to pure GPL in a controlled way. - a GMGPL maintenance branch can be forked as ultimate measure when necessary. I've to say that mail exchange with AdaCore was rather slow and painful. There seemed to be definite reluctance to answer any question in a meaningful way at all and even after narrowing everything (preliminary) down to the question of the present licensing status of GtkAda 2.4.0 AS OBTAINED FROM LIBRE.ACT-EUROPE in the first quarter of 2005, it took a time to get a definite statement. The Result: "Old" GtkAda is also GPL ------------------------------------ What I got, finally, was the following statement: "Let me be clearer, the only assumption you can make today for GtkAda downloaded from the libre site in the past is that it is licensed under the GPL." Apart from the weasel wording like "assumptions" (which still in my eyes tries to avoid to talk about the actual rights of the licensee / person in possession of the code and tries to introduce the notion of assumptions that could be made, as if AdaCore didn't exactly know which their licensing terms are or were), apart from that I think that is quite clear: "Don't use any GtkAda version with a linking exception". Not now and not in the last year. :-( Opinion ------- In the past a number of people here have been trying to portrait AdaCore as hardcore free software activists that only want to free the user from evil lesser licenses. I've always thought that this is utter BS and that AdaCore has indeed changed their direction quite a bit purely out of business considerations (and you're free to draw your own conclusion on why such a course change (and in rather clandestine a way) is necessary if the business model is to sell support for free software). But retrospectively revoking licenses should not part of any concept of freedom and I'm hard pressed to imagine such a scenario. I've gone as far as stating that it is this practice which will dissolve any meaning of the license notices in the distributions and any concept of possesion of a certain distribution under a non revokable license. I'll repeat it. You'd have to check for changes in the licenses with the distributor every week. This (the practice of bad license documentation and the (rather implicit) retrospective revokation, not the GPL per se) damages free software and just now it's AdaCore doing the deed. Of course if it comes to talking to potential customers, it's all COTS from FLOSS and openness. In my book openness starts with creating clearly understandable, fixed, licensing situations which I can file and forget after having read them once. AdaCore fails to to that in a number of ways (license notices on sites, license notices in distro, non contradictory notices in alignement with the supposed license). Congratulations to all people still distributing their GtkAda applications in binary form based on GMGPL sources. Let me repeat: "(...) the only assumption you can make today from the libre site in the past is that it is licensed under the GPL (...)" You got pwned. All your base belong to us. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-21 19:18 Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 M E Leypold @ 2006-07-22 16:06 ` Michael Bode 2006-07-22 21:46 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-07-23 4:54 ` Hyman Rosen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-07-22 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > What I got, finally, was the following statement: > > "Let me be clearer, the only assumption you can make today for GtkAda downloaded > from the libre site in the past is that it is licensed under the GPL." > At this point I would be seriously worried if I were a paying customer of Adacore. What if they suddenly change their licenses for the Pro versions too? What if that already *has* *happened* at some point in the *future*? You need a whole new English grammar to describe this "time travelling license". This is a company I would definitively never buy from. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-22 16:06 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-07-22 21:46 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-07-23 9:24 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-07-22 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrote: > M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > >> What I got, finally, was the following statement: >> >> "Let me be clearer, the only assumption you can make today for GtkAda downloaded >> from the libre site in the past is that it is licensed under the GPL." >> > > At this point I would be seriously worried if I were a paying customer > of Adacore. What if they suddenly change their licenses for the Pro > versions too? "What if..." question tend to introduce FUD. 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. 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. All of this might not appear in c.l.ada. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-22 21:46 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-07-23 9:24 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-07-23 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-21 19:18 Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 M E Leypold 2006-07-22 16:06 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-07-23 4:54 ` Hyman Rosen 2006-07-24 23:23 ` Björn Persson 2006-07-25 17:35 ` Simon Clubley 3 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2006-07-23 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > You got pwned. All your base belong to us. You are being silly. Whatever you downloaded came with the standard GPLish or LGPLish license files. The only thing you're bound by is what those files say. If you have a downloaded version with the linking exception, you're fine (barring that strict reading I mentioned). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-21 19:18 Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 M E Leypold 2006-07-22 16:06 ` Michael Bode 2006-07-23 4:54 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2006-07-24 23:23 ` Björn Persson 2006-07-25 9:01 ` michael bode 2006-07-25 16:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-25 17:35 ` Simon Clubley 3 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2006-07-24 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. � When you download the libraries bundled with Gnat GPL, you get a pure GPL for the whole bundle. � As for what license you get when you download a library separately: No comment. When there are contradicting claims, I'll go for the one that is closest to the source. That means I'll stick to the license that is stated in each piece of code, as downloaded directly from Libre (for packages whose copyright belongs to Adacore). It's not that I think Ludovic or Markus is lying, but anything posted here by a third party is technically a rumor (including this post). So it seems that for most of the libraries I get a pure GPL if I download a tarball, but GMGPL if I download it from CVS. As there are contradictions in some tarballs it may be safest to go for CVS; the license statements seem to be more consistent there. Here's my email exchange with Adacore: From: Bj�rn Persson To: libre Subject: How can I find out what license I have recieved? Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:43:03 +0200 As I'm sure you know, Adacore's license practice has caused a lot of discussion in comp.lang.ada recently. Representatives of Adacore have been quoted as saying that one should not believe the license statements in software packages downloaded from your website. There have been claims that it is your position that the only way to find out the license is to ask you directly, but I can't really believe that you want to answer an email each and every time someone downloads a file. There is also the problem that people aren't aware of this policy. Apparently hardly anyone in comp.lang.ada knew about it until a few days ago, and I'm sure there are lots of people who don't read comp.lang.ada regularly and still believe that the licenses you publish are actually the licenses you provide. There must be a better way to communicate your licenses. I ask you to publish an official declaration where you state which license statements should be trusted and which ones should not be trusted. It should not only cover the current situation but also describe how to know what license was used at any particular time in the past. I and lots of other people have software that we have downloaded from your server at various points in time, and we have believed the license statements that were included in the packages we dowloaded. We need some way of finding out what license we really recieved for which package at the time. Then there's of course one problem: If some things you publish are not meant to be believed, why should we believe the declaration where you tell us what to believe and what not to believe? But the approach with direct questions has exactly the same problem: Why should we believe what you say in emails or on the phone if we shouldn't believe your website? One thing you could do to show that this particular declaration should really be trusted is to sign it with PGP. Putting it on an HTTPS server could also raise the trust level somewhat. Regards, Bj�rn Persson From: Cyrille Comar Organization: AdaCore To: Bj�rn Persson CC: libre Subject: Re: How can I find out what license I have recieved? Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:30:23 +0200 Bj�rn Persson wrote: Hello Bjorn, > As I'm sure you know, Adacore's license practice has caused a lot of > discussion in comp.lang.ada recently. Yes, it seems that there is a lot of confusion on c.l.a. It is not the first time and most probably not the last one either ;-) > Representatives of Adacore have been > quoted as saying that one should not believe the license statements in > software packages downloaded from your website. There have been claims that > it is your position that the only way to find out the license is to ask you > directly, but I can't really believe that you want to answer an email each > and every time someone downloads a file. 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. > There is also the problem that people aren't aware of this policy. There is no such policy. We believe the libre site is and has always been very clear on its intended public (the free-software Ada developers community) and that the packages available for download contain the proper GPL statements in the format advised by the FSF. If it is not the case, please let us know, this is most probably an error and we will be happy to fix it. May I ask you to review the main page of the libre site and in particular the section called "Which version of GNAT is right for you?" and let me know if it leaves any room for uncertainty? Very Sincerely, Cyrille From: Bj�rn Persson To: Cyrille Comar Cc: libre Subject: Re: How can I find out what license I have recieved? Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:59:38 +0200 Cyrille Comar wrote: > Yes, it seems that there is a lot of confusion on c.l.a. It is not the > first time and most probably not the last one either ;-) I could mention several things Adacore could have done to reduce the confusion � or FUD, as some people would call it. > People are allowed to say whatever they like on c.l.a, nothing we can do > about this. Of course you can: If false statements are posted you can reply with corrections. It should be in your company's interest to stop misconceptions from spreading. > 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. > > > There is also the problem that people aren't aware of this policy. > > There is no such policy. So you mean we should indeed believe the license statements in file headers and readme files in software downloaded directly from the Libre site? Both what we download now and what we have downloaded in the past? Ludovic Brenta has reported that Robert Dewar and Arnaud Charlet have told him that all software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the headers say. Are you implying that's false? > We believe the libre site is and has always > been very clear on its intended public (the free-software Ada developers > community) and that the packages available for download contain the > proper GPL statements in the format advised by the FSF. If it is not the > case, please let us know, this is most probably an error and we will be > happy to fix it. > > May I ask you to review the main page of the libre site and in > particular the section called "Which version of GNAT is right for you?" > and let me know if it leaves any room for uncertainty? OK, now that I've figured out how to get through the broken firewall I've had another look. https://libre2.adacore.com/dynamic/gnat_faq.html makes the licenses of the different editions of Gnat very clear, but it says nothing about the licenses of ASIS, GTKada, AWS, XML/Ada, GLADE, PolyORB, Aunit or Florist. The only license statements I have found for those libraries are in the file headers and readme files, and there are several contradictions there: First there's the discrepancy between CVS and the tarballs. When I browse the CVS repository, AWS, GLADE, GTKada, PolyORB and XML/Ada all have the linking exception of the GMGPL in the file headers (or at least large parts of them have it), but in the tarballs the linking exception has been removed from most files. Apparently I get the GMGPL if I check the code out from CVS, but if I download tarballs I get the pure GPL � although with some of the tarballs the situation is murky, as detailed below. Ludovic Brenta says Robert Dewar and Arnaud Charlet say that code downloaded from the CVS server is pure GPL. Should I believe Ludovic or should I believe the file headers? I'm doing neither; I'm asking Adacore: What is the license? Then there are contradictions within some of the tarballs too: AWS-gpl-2.2.0/readme.txt and xmlada-gpl-2.2.0/README say AWS and XML/Ada are distributed under the GMGPL, and AWS-gpl-2.2.0/include/readme.txt lists the licenses of several components as GMGPL, but in all these cases � except for two Java files in AWS � the linking exception of the GMGPL has been removed from the file headers, so that the headers say the license is pure GPL. How do I know which license is right? The linking exception has been removed from all the file headers of PolyORB except for one C file, but the README, INSTALL, NEWS and FEATURES files contain the linking exception with a wording as if those files were themselves source code. I don't know whether that means the exception applies to all of PolyORB or what else "this unit" means in those files. Additionally, the documentation for AWS and PolyORB contains a whole lot of source code that has the linking exception, even though it's missing from the corresponding files in the "src" subdirectories. Again, how do I know which license is right? Besides, there is no copy of the GPL to be found in the ASIS or AWS packages, even though the file headers say I should have recieved one. Bj�rn Persson From: Cyrille Comar Organization: AdaCore To: Bj�rn Persson CC: libre Subject: Re: How can I find out what license I have recieved? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:42:36 +0200 Bj�rn Persson wrote: >> People are allowed to say whatever they like on c.l.a, nothing we can do >> about this. > > Of course you can: If false statements are posted you can reply with > corrections. Probably... although doing this consistently would require huge resources. We prefer to devote our resources to make the technology progress. > Ludovic Brenta has reported that Robert Dewar and Arnaud Charlet have told him > that all software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the > headers say. Are you implying that's false? 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. >> May I ask you to review the main page of the libre site and in >> particular the section called "Which version of GNAT is right for you?" >> and let me know if it leaves any room for uncertainty? > > OK, now that I've figured out how to get through the broken firewall I've had > another look. https://libre2.adacore.com/dynamic/gnat_faq.html makes the > licenses of the different editions of Gnat very clear, but it says nothing > about the licenses of ASIS, GTKada, AWS, XML/Ada, GLADE, PolyORB, Aunit or > Florist. Well, all those packages are distributed as part of a GNAT edition. This is in the context of those editions that we provide explicit license statements. > Besides, there is no copy of the GPL to be found in the ASIS or AWS packages, > even though the file headers say I should have recieved one. Ok, this is helpful, we will fix those packages. Thank you for your feedback, Cyrille -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-24 23:23 ` Björn Persson @ 2006-07-25 9:01 ` michael bode 2006-07-25 16:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: michael bode @ 2006-07-25 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw) =?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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-24 23:23 ` Björn Persson 2006-07-25 9:01 ` michael bode @ 2006-07-25 16:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-25 21:42 ` Björn Persson 2006-07-26 9:58 ` Steve Whalen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-07-25 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Björn Persson a écrit : > 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: After reading the rest of your post, it appears to me that the replies you got were very close to the ones I got; only your interpretation differs slightly. I agree that the answers we both got left a lot unanswered. > · There is *not* a policy that license statements in files headers and > readme files shouldn't be believed. My interpretation is: there is no policy at all; they have OTOH confirmed very explicitly to me that any files downloaded from the CVS repository is under pure GPL, even though (as I pointed out) most files contain the linking exception. Robert Dewar reiterated his statement in an email to me, but also said he is not allowed to give legal advice, so I conclude that whatever he said had no legal force either. Catch-22 :) > · Their licensing policy hasn't changed in any significant way. (Yeah > right!) It will be difficult for them to convince us of that. I think they have always *intended* the libre site and the CVS server for free software developers *only*, but they have never actively prevented non-free developers from using their software either, and the letter of the source files even explicitly allowed such usage. That letter, possibly, was at odds with AdaCore's spirit. > · They think all the license statements in the packages accurately reflect > the license you get. Neither reply you posted from Cyrille Comar supports that point of view; he never mentioned the license statements in the packages, in fact. He only referred to the "landing page" on the libre site. Furthermore, he alluded to the lack of "suitability" of packages downloaded from libre for non-libre development, but did not say whether such development was *allowed* or *forbidden*. It is not clear to me whether that "suitability" is technical (i.e. not supported) or legal (i.e. not allowed). A clarification will be most welcome, if they post one on their web site. > · When you download the libraries bundled with Gnat GPL, you get a pure > GPL for the whole bundle. Yes, that much has always been clear; these source files do not contain the exception language anymore. > · As for what license you get when you download a library separately: No > comment. Indeed, and this is where the trouble begins. I specifically asked that question to them and they said it is GPL, even if you download from their CVS servers and even if the files contain the linking and generic instantiation exception text. I did point out to them that the contradiction was a big source of confusion. > When there are contradicting claims, I'll go for the one that is closest > to the source. That means I'll stick to the license that is stated in each > piece of code, as downloaded directly from Libre (for packages whose > copyright belongs to Adacore). It's not that I think Ludovic or Markus is > lying, but anything posted here by a third party is technically a rumor > (including this post). > > So it seems that for most of the libraries I get a pure GPL if I download > a tarball, but GMGPL if I download it from CVS. As there are contradictions > in some tarballs it may be safest to go for CVS; the license statements > seem to be more consistent there. After what Hyman Rosen said, it would seem that this stance would probably stand trial in a court, but it contradicts the statements I received from AdaCore. But IANAL, as usual :/ I have already voiced my position as a Debian developer: I will retain the GMGPL for existing libraries (those in Sarge) but will switch to the pure GPL for newer versions (those in Etch), in order to comply with AdaCore's stated (in email) license. Furthermore, I am removing the linking and generic instantiation exception text from the source files in Debian, in order to reduce the potential for confusion; and I also explain the license change in the copyright file: see the copyright files in asis [1] and libxmlada2 [2] for the first examples. [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/asis.html [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/libx/libxmlada2.html -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-25 16:37 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-07-25 21:42 ` Björn Persson 2006-07-26 9:58 ` Steve Whalen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2006-07-25 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Bj�rn Persson a �crit : >> � They think all the license statements in the packages accurately reflect >> the license you get. > > Neither reply you posted from Cyrille Comar supports that point of > view; he never mentioned the license statements in the packages, in > fact. Then you missed this sentence: "We believe [...] that the packages available for download contain the proper GPL statements in the format advised by the FSF." The sentence after that, "If it is not the case, please let us know, this is most probably an error and we will be happy to fix it.", must mean that they think the statements are the way they want them to be. By the way, regarding that mention of "proper GPL statements", it should be noted that even GMGPL code contains all the GPL statements that pure-GPL code contains. -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-25 16:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-25 21:42 ` Björn Persson @ 2006-07-26 9:58 ` Steve Whalen 2006-07-26 11:08 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Steve Whalen @ 2006-07-26 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: ... > I have already voiced my position as a Debian developer: I will retain > the GMGPL for existing libraries (those in Sarge) but will switch to > the pure GPL for newer versions (those in Etch), in order to comply > with AdaCore's stated (in email) license. Furthermore, I am removing > the linking and generic instantiation exception text from the source > files in Debian, in order to reduce the potential for confusion; .... > Again, Thanks for all your work on the Debian Ada packages. One thing I'd request would be for you to clearly distinguish between a GtkAda or Florist Debian package that is GMGPL and a pure GPL version, when I'm looking at packages in aptitude or a similar package management tool. Whether having two visibly different package names, like maybe "GPLflorist" vs. "Florist " or GPLgtkAda vs. GtkAda is a good approach or something else would be better, I dont' know. I guess part of the request is not to "mix" Debian package dependencies between GMGPL packages, and the GPL packages. Is that hard to do? Have you already dealt with this? I hate to add to your workload, but if we're going to have two sets of Ada toolkits that have such radically different permitted uses in Debian, we'll need help keeping the licenses straight. Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 9:58 ` Steve Whalen @ 2006-07-26 11:08 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-26 12:54 ` michael bode 2006-07-30 0:16 ` Steve Whalen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-07-26 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Whalen a écrit : > One thing I'd request would be for you to clearly distinguish between a > GtkAda or Florist Debian package that is GMGPL and a pure GPL version, > when I'm looking at packages in aptitude or a similar package > management tool. I posted a request for comments on 2006-07-14 on this group, where I asked whether or not I should have parallel versions (GPL and GMGPL) of libraries. I also said, I think clearly, that I was unwilling to take this additional burden by myself; therefore, people in need GMGPL of libraries in Debian were strongly advised to get in touch with me and offer help. I have received only three responses (in private), none of which contained a definitive statement offering help. I conclude that nobody cares enough to spend the time necessary to maintain the GMGPL libraries (or else, they think I'll just do the work for them, for free). So, unless someone steps up, I will simply replace the old GMGPL versions with the newer pure-GPL ones. Those who need GMGPL libraries will have to stick with Sarge, or become Debian maintainers themselves and reintroduce the GMGPL libraries under different names. I don't need encouragement, I need help. > Whether having two visibly different package names, like maybe > "GPLflorist" vs. "Florist " or GPLgtkAda vs. GtkAda is a good approach > or something else would be better, I dont' know. In the event that I keep parallel versions, the existing GMGPL packages will keep their names but the newer packages will receive names reflecting their version number, as per debian policy. I will consider adding warning statements in the package descriptions, despite the fact that all Debian users should know about, and are expected to read the copyright file shipped with every package. > I guess part of the request is not to "mix" Debian package dependencies > between GMGPL packages, and the GPL packages. > > Is that hard to do? Have you already dealt with this? I hate to add to > your workload, but if we're going to have two sets of Ada toolkits that > have such radically different permitted uses in Debian, we'll need help > keeping the licenses straight. No, keeping track of the licenses is only a small part of the burden; if need be, we can add pragma License (GPL) statements and let GNAT help us. The biggest part of the workload is the transition and upgrade of all packages (which I am now busy with), long-term maintenance, and responding to bug reports. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 11:08 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-07-26 12:54 ` michael bode 2006-07-26 13:59 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 more replies) 2006-07-30 0:16 ` Steve Whalen 1 sibling, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: michael bode @ 2006-07-26 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > I have received only three responses (in private), none of which > contained a definitive statement offering help. I conclude that nobody > cares enough to spend the time necessary to maintain the GMGPL > libraries (or else, they think I'll just do the work for them, for > free). So, unless someone steps up, I will simply replace the old GMGPL > versions with the newer pure-GPL ones. Those who need GMGPL libraries > will have to stick with Sarge, or become Debian maintainers themselves > and reintroduce the GMGPL libraries under different names. I will talk about GtkAda only because that's the only lib that I've used so far and therefore I don't know if there are different situations for the other libs. There is now even more confusion than before. 1. First I read what you heard from Adacore regarding GMGPL: 2.4.0 downloaded before day X: GMGPL 2.4.0 downloaded after day X: GPL any later version: GPL 2. Then I read what Markus heard from Adacore: any version: GPL 3. Then I read what Björn Persson heard from Adacore: versions packaged with GNAT GPL: GPL versions packaged separate and CVS version: no comment globally no change in license politics file headers are correct Add 2 and 2 and you get version from CVS : GMGPL Depending on what you want to believe, choose from above. If I were a distribution maintainer, I would do the same thing you do. If I were interested in an up to date GMGPL version I'd go with 3. and download from CVS. If I were paranoid I'd go with 2. and couldn't even use 2.4.0 from Sarge for CSS development. Since there is seemingly not much interest in a 2.4.0 GMGPL version when the GPL version is at 2.8.x and maybe even such a thing can't exist (according to 2. above) for me the question simply is: can I take the GtkAda sources from Sarge and compile them in Etch and roll my own package (which would then forever stay at 2.4.0)? Probably yes, I guess or is there any code in 2.4.0 that doesn't compile with gnat 4.1? The other question would be: would it make more sense to fork an independent GMGPL GtkAda or join the GNAVI/GWindows project and work on the GTK+ port of GWindows? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 12:54 ` michael bode @ 2006-07-26 13:59 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-07-26 14:05 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-26 14:10 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-07-26 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 14:54 +0200, michael bode wrote: > The other question would be: would it make more sense to fork an > independent GMGPL GtkAda or join the GNAVI/GWindows project and work > on the GTK+ port of GWindows? Notice that GWindows depends on GNAT language extensions, whereas CLAW, another option, does not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 12:54 ` michael bode 2006-07-26 13:59 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-07-26 14:05 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-26 14:10 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-07-26 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw) michael bode a écrit : > Since there is seemingly not much interest in a 2.4.0 GMGPL version > when the GPL version is at 2.8.x and maybe even such a thing can't > exist (according to 2. above) for me the question simply is: can I > take the GtkAda sources from Sarge and compile them in Etch and roll > my own package (which would then forever stay at 2.4.0)? Probably yes, > I guess or is there any code in 2.4.0 that doesn't compile with gnat > 4.1? It is possible. I hinted at that solution in my post: you can become a Debian developer yourself and maintain GtkAda 2.4 in Etch. I'm not going to spend the effort if I'm the only one working on it, but I would welcome co-maintainers. I don't know if GtkAda 2.4.0 compiles with GCC 4.1. I haven't tried. But if it doesn't compile, it should be easy to fix as GtkAda does not depend on the compiler's internals. > The other question would be: would it make more sense to fork an > independent GMGPL GtkAda or join the GNAVI/GWindows project and work > on the GTK+ port of GWindows? This question has popped up before, but no definitive answer has come forth. It boils down to: do you care enough that you will spend the time and effort necessary? Do not count on others; this is free software, so scratch your own itch and only then, maybe others will join you. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 12:54 ` michael bode 2006-07-26 13:59 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-07-26 14:05 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-07-26 14:10 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-07-26 14:31 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-07-26 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw) On 26 Jul 2006 14:54:00 +0200, michael bode wrote: > The other question would be: would it make more sense to fork an > independent GMGPL GtkAda or join the GNAVI/GWindows project and work > on the GTK+ port of GWindows? GtkAda could be reworked from scratch. It must be boring and a lot of work, but not much complex. GtkAda is quite thin bindings. One could even make stuff like Gtk_Widget_Record limited controlled and make GTK+ interfaces Ada interfaces... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 14:10 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-07-26 14:31 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2006-07-26 18:12 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Alex R. Mosteo @ 2006-07-26 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 26 Jul 2006 14:54:00 +0200, michael bode wrote: > >> The other question would be: would it make more sense to fork an >> independent GMGPL GtkAda or join the GNAVI/GWindows project and work >> on the GTK+ port of GWindows? > > GtkAda could be reworked from scratch. It must be boring and a lot of > work, but not much complex. GtkAda is quite thin bindings. One could even > make stuff like Gtk_Widget_Record limited controlled and make GTK+ > interfaces Ada interfaces... Or maybe the people working on the C binding generator of SWIG could use some help, and start from there. I think that's the really critical Ada project waiting to happen. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 14:31 ` Alex R. Mosteo @ 2006-07-26 18:12 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-07-27 11:01 ` Alex R. Mosteo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-07-26 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:31:24 +0200, Alex R. Mosteo wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> On 26 Jul 2006 14:54:00 +0200, michael bode wrote: >> >>> The other question would be: would it make more sense to fork an >>> independent GMGPL GtkAda or join the GNAVI/GWindows project and work >>> on the GTK+ port of GWindows? >> >> GtkAda could be reworked from scratch. It must be boring and a lot of >> work, but not much complex. GtkAda is quite thin bindings. One could even >> make stuff like Gtk_Widget_Record limited controlled and make GTK+ >> interfaces Ada interfaces... > > Or maybe the people working on the C binding generator of SWIG could use > some help, and start from there. Well, GTK+ is a quite weird thing. It tries to do OO in plain C. It is like flying to the Moon on a bike. (:-)) A generator might break its teeth on it. GtkAda has difficulties with all this. For example, GTK+ type extension is not an extension of the corresponding Ada type. GTK+ interface isn't an Ada interface. GTK+ virtual function isn't a primitive operation etc. > I think that's the really critical Ada > project waiting to happen. SWIG or GTK+ bindings? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 18:12 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-07-27 11:01 ` Alex R. Mosteo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Alex R. Mosteo @ 2006-07-27 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:31:24 +0200, Alex R. Mosteo wrote: > >> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> >>> On 26 Jul 2006 14:54:00 +0200, michael bode wrote: >>> >>>> The other question would be: would it make more sense to fork an >>>> independent GMGPL GtkAda or join the GNAVI/GWindows project and work >>>> on the GTK+ port of GWindows? >>> >>> GtkAda could be reworked from scratch. It must be boring and a lot of >>> work, but not much complex. GtkAda is quite thin bindings. One could >>> even make stuff like Gtk_Widget_Record limited controlled and make GTK+ >>> interfaces Ada interfaces... >> >> Or maybe the people working on the C binding generator of SWIG could use >> some help, and start from there. > > Well, GTK+ is a quite weird thing. It tries to do OO in plain C. It is > like flying to the Moon on a bike. (:-)) A generator might break its teeth > on it. GtkAda has difficulties with all this. For example, GTK+ type > extension is not an extension of the corresponding Ada type. GTK+ > interface isn't an Ada interface. GTK+ virtual function isn't a primitive > operation etc. Yep, no joys in all these things. >> I think that's the really critical Ada >> project waiting to happen. > > SWIG or GTK+ bindings? SWIG ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-26 11:08 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-26 12:54 ` michael bode @ 2006-07-30 0:16 ` Steve Whalen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Steve Whalen @ 2006-07-30 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Steve Whalen a écrit : > > One thing I'd request would be for you to clearly distinguish between a > > GtkAda or Florist Debian package that is GMGPL and a pure GPL version, > > when I'm looking at packages in aptitude or a similar package > > management tool. > > I posted a request for comments on 2006-07-14 on this group, where I > asked whether or not I should have parallel versions (GPL and GMGPL) of > libraries. I also said, I think clearly, that I was unwilling to take > this additional burden by myself; therefore, people in need GMGPL of > libraries in Debian were strongly advised to get in touch with me and > offer help. > ... I phrased my question / request badly. I was not asking you to do more work. I already know there probably would NOT be an Ada compiler in Debian exept for your work, which I very much appreciate. > ... I will consider adding warning statements in the package descriptions, ... I guess I was hoping you could do that without too much trouble. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I thought that as long as anyone has an apt preferences that includes Sarge, and testing / Etch, both GMGPL and GPL versions of Ada libraries and compilers would be available in aptitude / dselect / etc. GtkAda having version 2.4 and 2.8 available could get confusing without some fairly visible means of distinguishing GMGPL from GPL versions. I agree that programmers should know the license of the software they're downloading and using, but I think it's fairly rare that the "utility" of a Debian package changes significantly going from one version number to a higher number, as happens when going from 3.x to 4.x in Debian Ada compilers or GtaAda from 2.4 to 2.8.... > ... I don't need encouragement, I need help. ... I wish I had the time to maintain one or more of the GMGPL libraries or compilers myself, or the budget to assign one or more people to do it, but I don't. So we will just have to live with the death of GMGPL Ada (and thus probably Ada). That's why I was so upset when AdaCore started down this path months ago. I knew this was where we'd end up.... Only AdaCore can keep both GMGPL and GPL versions of the compilers and libraries it maintains up to date without significant effort and expense. Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 2006-07-21 19:18 Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 M E Leypold ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2006-07-24 23:23 ` Björn Persson @ 2006-07-25 17:35 ` Simon Clubley 3 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Simon Clubley @ 2006-07-25 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <ptslku4vi4.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>, M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > > Dear All, > > To make it short: A member of the sales departement of AdaCore has > written a mail to me, which at least tries to stipulate that even the > older (pre 2005 versions) of GtkAda can only be used under the > GPL. Which can only mean: The linking exception has been revoked, that > happening at a unspecified time in the deep past and silently so. > You may wish to ask this person how this position can be in agreement with the following post from Arnaud Charlet: http://lists.adacore.com/pipermail/gtkada/2002-February/001204.html Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP If Google's motto is "don't be evil", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-30 0:16 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-07-21 19:18 Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0 M E Leypold 2006-07-22 16:06 ` Michael Bode 2006-07-22 21:46 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-07-23 9:24 ` Michael Bode 2006-07-23 4:54 ` Hyman Rosen 2006-07-24 23:23 ` Björn Persson 2006-07-25 9:01 ` michael bode 2006-07-25 16:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-25 21:42 ` Björn Persson 2006-07-26 9:58 ` Steve Whalen 2006-07-26 11:08 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-26 12:54 ` michael bode 2006-07-26 13:59 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-07-26 14:05 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-07-26 14:10 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-07-26 14:31 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2006-07-26 18:12 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-07-27 11:01 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2006-07-30 0:16 ` Steve Whalen 2006-07-25 17:35 ` Simon Clubley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox