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,d5931b040ae9423f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: New open source UML tool including Ada support References: <1184060318.279769.238890@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <7jfy3we76c.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1184083855.206336.304480@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1184098484.814202.54350@p39g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1184632706.827897.262960@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1184665013.13088.36.camel@kartoffel> <1184669003.13088.47.camel@kartoffel> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:10:02 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:thU95sQ4ZJeGhVyKjH9hl95Z8bU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.228.160 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1184673553 88.72.228.160 (17 Jul 2007 13:59:13 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16502 Date: 2007-07-17T14:10:02+02:00 List-Id: > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 12:10 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote: > >> > FWIW, the license text can be read now by performing an >> > installation of the software. >> >> Ah good. But am I right in supposing it's at the moment a >> dont-redistribute-License? > > Saying that the license text is based on the LGPL is a good > characterization, I think. So the license of the existing executable is already based on LGPL? And I have to add the sources of the executable if I redistribute it. How quaint, given that there are no sources yet. > (AFAICS they ask you not to do a few things with Ameos itself. > For example, create your own Ameos and then give it away without > ScopeSET being involved. Please, don't take this sentence as > literally describing things.) If there is a condition in any way similar to that, that would actually remove the 'GP' from LGPL. Because the essence of (l)GPL is the right to redistribute _modified_ code. In case one wants to (L)GPL-open-source one's code, one has to live with that provision, I think. Usually others don't have the resources anyway, but the option and the effort to fork defines the level of protection of the user/distributor against arbitray release and support policy (and unforseaable changes thereof) by the main developers: If things become unbearable, the cost to fork is finite (see the Joomla/Mambo split as an example) instead of virtually inifinite (if a fork is excluded). I seriously hope the condition you're talking about is only a request not really a license condition. If the situation is really like you say, using (L)GPL to advertise for the code would be impertinent. Would a "don't distribute modified code on your license" even be approved by OSI? (I will have to look that up). Regards -- Markus PS: Unfortunately one can't see the license at the site w/o downloading and runnng the exe-file. Even trying to unpack the exe-file doesn't work for (it doesn't seem to be a "standard" self extracing executable). I can't (i.e. don't want to) run any untested software on the build reference machines now, so this will have to wait.