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: 103376,71b4c0131a8a22a4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ? References: <1182160706.208857@xnews001> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:40:23 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MSta4ahmyUBDNi1ZbhJ5vOR/PNU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.238.218 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1182346234 88.72.238.218 (20 Jun 2007 15:30:34 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16269 Date: 2007-06-20T15:40:23+02:00 List-Id: > In <1182160706.208857@xnews001>, Dirk Heinrichs 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