Re: GtkAda License Question

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

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> M E Leypold writes:
> > Does anybody here have any idea how the licensing situation of GtkAda
> > actually is? Are the copyright header with linking exception are only
> > remnants of (happy :-) days long past or is GtkAda actually licensed
> > with a linking exceaption (in version 2.4.1) and it just has been
> > forgotten in the README to mention that? And what about the new
> > versions from the CVS (i.e. 2.8.0)?
> 
> The only authoritative source is AdaCore, so when in doubt, ask them.
> Robert Dewar clearly said during FOSDEM that the headers, the COPYING
> and the README files have no legal force whatsoever; users are always
> required by law to ascertain the licensing terms with the licensor. The

Which is obvious nonsense, since that would render all GPL licensing
as practiced presently invalid. Also I'd like to ask "which law"? US
law? International copyright law? 

But I can see why Robert Dewar would prefer that reading of the
situation. That would also explain why there is no independent other
site offering current libre-Downloads (like GtkAda, GNAT GPL).

> presence of the GMGPL in the headers allows you to presume that these
> licensing terms are the ones to use; IANAL so I don't know if this
> argument can convince a court of law.

Interesting. Probably all license files in my software package are not
valid then ...

> Now, I think it is reasonable to presume that:

> - GtkAda GPL edition (both version 2.4.1 and version "gps-3.1.3" are
> included) is pure GPL

> - GtkAda 2.4.0 from libre is GMGPL

> - GtkAda from CVS is GMGPL (the headers have the exception.)

Exactly this is where the problem starts. The CVS has GtkAda 2.8.0,
but I won't build it if it is GPL-only. If the binary in the GPL GNAT
bundle is based on identical sources, why would it be under GPL? If
the sources are different, then either the CVS source builds better
than the source on the GPL GNAT bundle or the other way round. Both
situations would incite further questions.

> In Debian, all libraries are GMGPL, except ASIS 2006 which will soon
> arrive in Etch under pure GPL. Use Debian. Debian is good for your
> mental health :)

But only as long as the the upstream licensing doesn't change -- oh so
suddenly -- to GPL. Then all us small developers of graphical gadgets
have either to shell out > $15000 / year just for maintaining our
smallish projects or we pull maintenance very suddenly.

What joy.

Regards -- Markus