From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151436486.2179.48.camel@localhost> From: M E Leypold Date: 28 Jun 2006 03:07:05 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.243.222 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151456450 88.72.243.222 (28 Jun 2006 03:00:50 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.germany.com!news.tu-darmstadt.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5168 Date: 2006-06-28T03:07:05+02:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > > "Ludovic Brenta" writes: > > > > > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > > > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > > > servers. In summary: > > > How is any > > Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file > > headers are invalid? > > The file headers aren't invalid. That sounds like nitpicking, > but "invalid" has different meaning. Like? > only when someone uses software in a way that by applicable > law is (a) illegal, and (b) this fact is made a legal issue. Sorry. That is, in example, quite relevant, if, in example, someone just picks the files with linking exception from the package and creates a GMGPL binding from that. Which he/she should be allowed to do, if the headers have any meaning. > As long as Debian doesn't have any legal obligations, they can > proactively try to reduce the risk of being associated with software > that incurs a surprising legal status. Man, man. The "surprising legal status" is something that should never have happened. And forgive me: It's not Debian which is at fault here. > I think that one way to do this is to collect all available > evidence, and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it. For what? They are not actually giving any useful words, AFAIS. Regards -- Markus