Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> "george" <gshapovalov@gmail.com> writes (quoting an AdaCore person):
> 
> > Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source
> > files have no real legal value anyway.
> 
> I don't suppose that has been tested in court either.  Here are all of
> us non-lawyers assuming that a company such as AdaCore, led by an
> expert in software copyright issues, would take the trouble to get its
> publicly-visible statements related to copyright consistent.

One would also think, that they would state the copyright _clearly_ at
the distribution site, and state the copyright in the README file. 

One is mistaken in thinking so.

A good example of stating copyrights clearly everyhwere is florist
3.15p where the linking exception is not only in the file headers, but
again in the README.

It is also usual if someone packages files with different licenses, to
give a clear explanation (usually in the README file) that single
files are under a different license ("refer to the file headers").

One would also expect that it is a big no-no to strip parts of
copyright headers where one didn't change anything (apart from
removing a default keyword) and to add a rather all-inclusive
copyright to files that weren't changed.

One is also mistaken in thinking so.

One could stipulate that all this muddying of the situational waters,
so to say, is actually done on some purpose. One could speculate on
the purpose. 

:-]

Regards -- Markus