Re: GtkAda License Question

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

Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:

> M E Leypold a �crit :
> >> 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?

> Hmmm, before making such a statement, you should know that Robert
> Dewar *is* a lawyer, i.e. he is a registered expert to the court about
> matters of software copyright.

So all current practice of distributing GPL software is flawed insofar
as the COPYYING and README files don't establish a binding agreement
between the receiver and the author of the software? So the receiver
has actually find the author (or copyright holder) to ascertain the
licensing terms and if he finds him, it might be that the copyright
holder decides that today there are different licensing terms for this
applicant?

I seriously hope that is not what Robert Dewar meant. Indeed I think
he has been quoted out of context (thanks to Ludovic anyway for the
quote!) and one has to see how things pan out with ACT when asking for
clarification on that issues.

Let me add, that the process AT&T vs. BSDI actually seemed to attach
some significance to the headers and even if the law has changed since
(it has, at least concerning the defaults for files w/o headers) I
seriously doubt they suddenly on't have any significance at all.

Regards -- Markus