Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ?

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

> In <1182160706.208857@xnews001>, Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs.ext@nsn.com> writes:
>>anon wrote:
>>
>>> Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>> alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
>>
>>That's a different beast. This is used to enforce GPL lincensed kernel
>>modules. It results in a _runtime_ check. When a module with a
>>non-compatible license is loaded, it will taint the kernel and you will not
>>get any support from kernel hackers in case of problems.
>>
> That's why the OSI/FSF requested the NYU group the creators of the 
> GNU/AdaCore Ada to add the "pragma License" statement with its 
> option of "( GPL )".  But NYU or Adacore never complete the link to 
> the _runtine_ checker. which is what I stated in my second reply about 
> this.  First reply, showed source code that tested the "pragma License" 
> on the GNAT compiler.
>
>      Y O U   N E E D  T O   R E A D  ! ! !   
>      B E F O R E  A N S W E R I N G  ! ! !

Well, a little bit shouting and fidgeting would be nice ... 

> And for the rest ask a LAYWER. I have testing what I say in court and 

I'm almost sure, the role of "LAWYERS" in 21st century society is
somewhat overestimated in comparison to, say, medical doctors or
electric engineers. If something is about law, people tend to assume
astonishingly early that everything is ununderstandable magic and
"normal" people can't and shouldn't reason about it. In comparison if
it goes about putting a new power line into your garden house, or
repairing an old fridge, almost evryone has an opinion. Nobody shouts:
"You will have to ask AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER". And people like to talk
about all those little symptoms they aquire with old age and what they
might possibly mean and how to soothe them and again (almost) nobody
shouts: "You will have to ask A MEDICAL DOCTOR".

I think you get my point: As an electrical engineer, you shouldn't
advise lay people (at least not strongly) how to build electrical
installations: It would be dangerous. But lay people might struggle to
understand electrical engineering (knowing it can be dangerous). Same
applies to lawyering: A lay person shouldn't advise other people on
legal issues (it's even forbidden in some states) because there is a
certain risk involved that the advise is simply wrong and cost the
client dearly. But still lay people might struggle to understand
law. And they even should.

It would be a really sorry state of affairs of a modern and democratic
state / community, if the laws which govern our public live wouldn't
be understandable at least in principle to the ordinary citizen. Or if
we would be forbidden to discuss the laws and their consequences in
public.

> I won, The case was based on GPL version 1 to Version 2 policy.  They 
> thought like you that the source would still be under the old GPL version 
> 1 but when OSI/FSF adopted version 2.  They had to comply with version 
> 2 and they did not. And it cost them BIG time when the judge made his 
> desision.

Concerning this, you'd have to come out of comfortable
anonymity. Frankly, I don't know about any such case, and doubt you're
presenting it correctly here. Section 9 of the GPL states (quite
explicitely)


  9. [...]

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
  specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
  "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
  conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
  the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
  version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
  published by the Free Software Foundation.

Since "you" in this text is -- quite clearly -- the licensee, he or
she _has_ exactly the choice you seem to deny: To follow either the
original license or the new version, as long as they're dealing with
source they obtained under the old license.

> Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to 
> GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could 
> go back and write a new Linux license.

I seriously doubt that: Copyright of other people is entangled all
over the source code. So even Linus can't change the license to some
completely different license (w/o consent of a not so well defined
large set of contributors). Parts of the kernel that have the "or
later" clause can be shifted to GPL3, but as I understand it, part of
the problem is, that some parts of the kernel have GPL2 without the
"or later" wording (which is a perfectly valid way to apply the
GPL). Those cannot be shifted to GPL3, which poses a problem since
GPL3 is incompatible to GPL2 (Source:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007053116322326, RMS says:
"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is
no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a
single program.").

> E N O U G H   S A I D   A B O U T   T H I S ! ! ! 

Hardly. You are once again proving a source of -- hm, I can't say it
differently -- misinformation or, less kindly, FUD. It would be
necessary to give some evidence or reference to other source to
support your exceptional points of view.

> S I N C E   T H I S   G R O U P   I S   A B O U T   A D A 
> N O T  G P L   O R   O S I / F S F  O R   E V E N   L I N U X  ! ! !

BTW: OSI is not FSF, you're mixing something up again. 

WRT to OT: The group is about Ada, certainly, but interpretations of
the GPL seem to me on topic, since some of the major Ada compilers
around (the verious GNATs) are licensed under GPL and license issues
often turn up. Same applies to a number of interesting
libraries. Regularly the FSF comes in here: It usually takes around
10-15 post that someone comes along and writes "the FSF wants" and
"the FSF wants not". 

As far as Linux goes, that was an example you or some of your sparring
partners brought in, but I'd hate to leave the topic now, after you
dumped a huge load of misinfomation in the thread.

>>"  9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions

Interesting that you want to leave the topic now, immediately after
someone pointed you to the very same paragraph of the GPL as I did.

(BTW: This was section 7 in GPL 1, just to cover that exit hole too:
Your supposed litigation was around GPL1 and that also has the
same wording)

Regards -- Markus