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: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... References: <449660f0$0$11077$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <449d2a28$0$11075$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> From: M E Leypold Date: 24 Jun 2006 15:16:07 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.218.241 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151154607 88.72.218.241 (24 Jun 2006 15:10:07 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!130.59.10.21.MISMATCH!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4972 Date: 2006-06-24T15:16:07+02:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > Michael Bode writes: > > > >> If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that > >> Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily > > You're completely right in that respect. > > State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source programs > from free software libraries and everyone knows what you are really > talking about, I think. Yes, and why not? (a) Read that not as closed as in "locking my customer in", but as closed as in "my customers want me to sign an NDA (of his concepts embodied in the source) and wants to be sure its binding". (b) Other communites (Ocaml, Qt) don't have a problem with that. > Do the respective MS EULAs permit modifying the DLL source code and > distributing works based on these modified DLLs using any license of > your choosing? No, but neither would the LGPL and the GMGPL. So why GPL instead of the other two? There must be an answer to that ... :-). And that "any license of your choosing" is slightly ironic if I consider that ACT has just completely stripped the linking exceaptions from an only sligtly changed florist library. > I find it a bit dangerous to say the word "right" in a discussion Talking about "legal issues" is always dangerous. It's in society like "nuclear" in physics. Don't touch it, for experts only. But don't fear. The counterspell IANAL, IANAL effectively protects you from the danger the discussion of your rights inevitably incurs. Or so I'm told :-). (Please add more smileys here where needed. YMMV. Ahem.) > of legal issues. That aside, the word "freedom" always has points > of reference. Freedom for whom to do what to what, provided that, etc. Dependency. If I rely on situation X now, who has the power to change it and what's the cost for me to deal with the change. > As Ludovic has said, it is important to keep in mind that Free Software > uses some specific points of references when it says what free means > in the GPL. Hello ... There is also LGPL. Why is that so? No point of reference? > Playing with the word "free" saying less free or more free without > stating the other parts of the notion of "free" is in fact a well > known omission trick in persuasive rhetoric, used when the speakers > want to fool others - and sometimes themselves. Yes. > Ahmadinedjad has been trying this game, too, referring to some > deliberately incomplete definition of freedom as in freedom of press, > when he pointed out that he thinks that western press is in fact not > free. > We are not free to stone someone to death, and we are not free to Strange comparison. Rethorical, eh? > distribute closed source software that is derived from a Free Software > library. Fair enough, I'd say. LGPL. LGPL. LGPL. I think you're missing some points. But never mind. _This thread was about GPL Gnat and I dare say that the right of reverting to GPL was part of the agreement between ACT and the FSF when GNat was integrated into GCC. Since there is another GMGPL Ada compiler now the discussion about GPL Gnat is indeed mood. I don't care. But about the libraries I completely disagree, but it's hard to count "moral arguments" of the rather all inclusive type like your last one (free, fairness, freedom free). I dare say if one follows an argument based on a definition that freedom is absence of lock-ins and dependencies (on the future well meaning of vendors / copyright holders / whatever) and ask where and when dependencies arise, one would come to a different result. After all, as I said, the world is not black and white and the question is not GPL or not, but there are also GMGPL and LGPL. If, of course you think, that "free" in any sense only pairs well with "free" -- like your above arguments seems to indicate -- I'd suggest that futureapps.de (Your Employer / company?) would stop using free Linux and free Apache to server their business web pages thus unfairly and unfreely commercially profiting (boo, boo) from the free software. I think that rather indicates that tool use must be distinguished from modifying software (a derived work). Libraries are somewhat in between and it is open to discussion inhowfar _using_ a library make a derived work from your program. Is i.e. my source compiled at AIX a derived work of the AIX libc? Hardly. It even becomes more absurd if we're talking about the compiler runtime: Compiling with GPL Gnat make your excutable a derive work of the GPL Gnat. Sounds like a legal trick to me, nothing else. Not the spirit of the GPL, rather the letter. But as I said: Discussions about GPL Gnat are useless, there are alternatives. (Discussions about GPL vs. LGPL vs. GMGPL as library license on the other other side are rather necessary, I think). Regards -- Markus