* GtkAda License Question @ 2006-06-19 11:11 M E Leypold 2006-06-19 11:48 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw) (Oh no, not a licensing question again). In the new GNAT-2006 release I found GtkAda labeled as GTKAda-GPL. Since, if that were so, it would hinder the use of GTkAda under GMPL-conditions with gccada, I started (as a first step) to look into the licensing of the older GTKAda 2.4.1 and now I'm confused: - Most (if not all) of the files which are later linked to the executable seem to carry the GMPL linking exception. - Neither COPYING nor README mention the linking exception. Does anybody here have any idea how the licensing situation of GtkAda actually is? Are the copyright header with linking exception are only remnants of (happy :-) days long past or is GtkAda actually licensed with a linking exceaption (in version 2.4.1) and it just has been forgotten in the README to mention that? And what about the new versions from the CVS (i.e. 2.8.0)? Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-19 11:11 GtkAda License Question M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 11:48 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-19 20:28 ` M E Leypold ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-19 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes: > Does anybody here have any idea how the licensing situation of GtkAda > actually is? Are the copyright header with linking exception are only > remnants of (happy :-) days long past or is GtkAda actually licensed > with a linking exceaption (in version 2.4.1) and it just has been > forgotten in the README to mention that? And what about the new > versions from the CVS (i.e. 2.8.0)? 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 presence of the GMGPL in the headers allows you to presume that these licensing terms are the ones to use; IANAL so I don't know if this argument can convince a court of law. Now, I think it is reasonable to presume that: - GtkAda GPL edition (both version 2.4.1 and version "gps-3.1.3" are included) is pure GPL - GtkAda 2.4.0 from libre is GMGPL - GtkAda from CVS is GMGPL (the headers have the exception.) In Debian, all libraries are GMGPL, except ASIS 2006 which will soon arrive in Etch under pure GPL. Use Debian. Debian is good for your mental health :) -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-19 11:48 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-19 20:28 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 5:11 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-20 8:46 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2006-06-20 6:12 ` Björn Persson 2006-06-20 7:48 ` gshapovalov 2 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > M E Leypold writes: > > Does anybody here have any idea how the licensing situation of GtkAda > > actually is? Are the copyright header with linking exception are only > > remnants of (happy :-) days long past or is GtkAda actually licensed > > with a linking exceaption (in version 2.4.1) and it just has been > > forgotten in the README to mention that? And what about the new > > versions from the CVS (i.e. 2.8.0)? > > 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? But I can see why Robert Dewar would prefer that reading of the situation. That would also explain why there is no independent other site offering current libre-Downloads (like GtkAda, GNAT GPL). > presence of the GMGPL in the headers allows you to presume that these > licensing terms are the ones to use; IANAL so I don't know if this > argument can convince a court of law. Interesting. Probably all license files in my software package are not valid then ... > Now, I think it is reasonable to presume that: > - GtkAda GPL edition (both version 2.4.1 and version "gps-3.1.3" are > included) is pure GPL > - GtkAda 2.4.0 from libre is GMGPL > - GtkAda from CVS is GMGPL (the headers have the exception.) Exactly this is where the problem starts. The CVS has GtkAda 2.8.0, but I won't build it if it is GPL-only. If the binary in the GPL GNAT bundle is based on identical sources, why would it be under GPL? If the sources are different, then either the CVS source builds better than the source on the GPL GNAT bundle or the other way round. Both situations would incite further questions. > In Debian, all libraries are GMGPL, except ASIS 2006 which will soon > arrive in Etch under pure GPL. Use Debian. Debian is good for your > mental health :) But only as long as the the upstream licensing doesn't change -- oh so suddenly -- to GPL. Then all us small developers of graphical gadgets have either to shell out > $15000 / year just for maintaining our smallish projects or we pull maintenance very suddenly. What joy. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-19 20:28 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 5:11 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-20 8:46 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-20 5:11 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes: >> - GtkAda GPL edition (both version 2.4.1 and version "gps-3.1.3" are >> included) is pure GPL > >> - GtkAda 2.4.0 from libre is GMGPL > >> - GtkAda from CVS is GMGPL (the headers have the exception.) > > Exactly this is where the problem starts. The CVS has GtkAda 2.8.0, > but I won't build it if it is GPL-only. If the binary in the GPL GNAT > bundle is based on identical sources, why would it be under GPL? If > the sources are different, then either the CVS source builds better > than the source on the GPL GNAT bundle or the other way round. Both > situations would incite further questions. When producing a GPL version, AdaCore simply remove the "exception" paragraph from every file using a script before packaging the sources. No magic, and no difference in the actual software. >> In Debian, all libraries are GMGPL, except ASIS 2006 which will soon >> arrive in Etch under pure GPL. Use Debian. Debian is good for your >> mental health :) > > But only as long as the the upstream licensing doesn't change -- oh so > suddenly -- to GPL. Then all us small developers of graphical gadgets > have either to shell out > $15000 / year just for maintaining our > smallish projects or we pull maintenance very suddenly. > > What joy. That would be a good reason for a fork, then. If sufficiently many people are interested in the maintenance of these tools, it is a realistic proposition. But let's not think of a fork before it is actually necessary. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-19 20:28 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 5:11 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-20 8:46 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2006-06-20 9:57 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 13:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2006-06-20 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-20 8:46 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2006-06-20 9:57 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 17:11 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2006-06-20 13:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-20 9:57 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-21 17:11 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2006-06-21 18:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2006-06-21 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold a �crit : > 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? > COPYING and README are not *proofs*, that's what he meant. Anybody can take propriatory software and redistribute it with a COPYING file (or change the headers); this won't make the software free. What Robert said is that if you want legal assurance that the software is free, you need a signed letter from the author. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-21 17:11 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2006-06-21 18:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-06-21 21:23 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-06-21 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:11:52 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > M E Leypold a �crit : >> 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? >> > COPYING and README are not *proofs*, that's what he meant. Anybody can > take propriatory software and redistribute it with a COPYING file (or > change the headers); this won't make the software free. What Robert said > is that if you want legal assurance that the software is free, you need > a signed letter from the author. In my admittedly ignorant eyes, that looks like a different case. After all, anyone can forge a signature on the letter. But the question is, let Markus correct me, whether the COPYING _as distributed by the author_ is a proof in the court. For example, may the author withdraw authentic COPYING. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-21 18:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-06-21 21:23 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-21 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 20:23 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > But the question is, let > Markus correct me, whether the COPYING _as distributed by the author_ is a > proof in the court. For example, may the author withdraw authentic COPYING. This might shift the question to what distribution means and implies. I think that usually the law is about contracts. There are culturally different ways of establishing a contract, there is good faith etc., but these are legal matters ... IANAL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-20 8:46 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2006-06-20 9:57 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 13:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-20 13:42 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-20 15:03 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-20 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:46 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > M E Leypold a écrit : > >> 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. Also notice that every time you install just about any software, then in Europe at least, you must explicitly (and knowingly) confirm that you agree to the licensing terms. I believe it is a requirement of EU contractual procedures that you must check corresponding boxes. (Which again is probably not enough for such and such, etc...) (Opposed to this requirement, I remember arguments that the sentence "by opening this box you agree to ... contained therein" is irrelevant.) IANAL. Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-20 13:31 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-20 13:42 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-20 15:03 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Frank J. Lhota @ 2006-06-20 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Also notice that every time you install just about any software, > then in Europe at least, > you must explicitly (and knowingly) confirm that you agree to the > licensing terms. > I believe it is a requirement of EU contractual procedures that > you must check corresponding boxes. (Which again is probably not > enough for such and such, etc...) > (Opposed to this requirement, I remember arguments that the > sentence "by opening this box you agree to ... contained therein" > is irrelevant.) > IANAL. This is also true in the U.S.: the installation of every non-free software package seems to require the acceptance of an End-User License Agreement (EULA). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-20 13:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-20 13:42 ` Frank J. Lhota @ 2006-06-20 15:03 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 15:25 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:46 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > M E Leypold a �crit : > > >> 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. > > Also notice that every time you install just about any software, > then in Europe at least, > you must explicitly (and knowingly) confirm that you agree to the > licensing terms. I'd like to offer 2 observations here (but IANAL): (1) There were various companies which didn't think the GPL binding for exactly that reason (they hadn't clicked any boxes ..., meaning, they hadn't agreed explicitly to anything). Their vie didn't hold up in the courts. (It was somthing about firewalling, Harald Welte was the owner of the code in question). (2) According to the FSF the GPL is no licensing _contract_ but a "grant of rights". The other side doesn't need to agree, since the default would be "no rights". (Of course Dan Bernstein of QMail fame disagrees here). This has no impact on Robert Dewar's quote. He holds that whatever rights are granted with the file COPYING or in the file headers, it's not binding and there are no rights given, you "have to check with the licensor". I doubt that. (3) If we stay with the contractual model. In German law (which is no case law like American or UK law), there is the concept of "konkludentes Handeln" which I would roughly translate as "implied consent". I have not seen it applied to the GPL situation (yet), but the idea is, that a contract manifests itself even in simple transactions at the supermarket checkout, since whereas both sides probably don't say anything like "I agree that I take the money and you get the goods" the circumstances and the actions speak for themselves: One gives moneay, the other takes it and that is what you do in a super market: buying goods. Applying that to the usual way of distributing GPL software: Just unpacking the sources, reading COPYING and then using the source to generate an executable would be "implied consent". "Well, Mr. Judge, I read, that they thought that the code should be used under the GPL, yes, but I thought it somehow would not apply to me or was just any old COPYING files". Rather believable. > I believe it is a requirement of EU contractual procedures that > you must check corresponding boxes. (Which again is probably not > enough for such and such, etc...) I don't think so. There have been some attempts to make it so (EU law is such a nice argument if you want to twist national law into something else ...), but mostly with respect to default warranties etc which can only be restricgted by explicit agreement. That interacts with the GPL but it's NOT generall required for the user to check boxes in Europe to get rights under the GPL. I live there. But IANAL: Don't construe that as legal advice. I'm not a lawyer. > (Opposed to this requirement, I remember arguments that the > sentence "by opening this box you agree to ... contained therein" > is irrelevant.) That is "licensing". And since you bought the box, there is already a contract, which cannot be restricted again by a text in the box. Other situation. > IANAL. IANAL2 (I'm not a lawer too). Considering how f***ed up by legal pits and traps the internet has become, this propably should become the new standard greeting in forums and usenet. "IANAL!". "IANAL2!". Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-20 15:03 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 15:25 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Excuse all the typos in my last post. -- Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-19 11:48 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-19 20:28 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 6:12 ` Björn Persson 2006-06-20 7:51 ` gshapovalov 2006-06-20 7:48 ` gshapovalov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2006-06-20 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > 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. Hmmmmm? Then the typical "you don't even have the right to sneeze" EULA wouldn't have any legal force either. Am I supposed to travel to Redmond and get Bill's hand-written signature on a contract each time I buy a computer with Windows pre-installed? -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-20 6:12 ` Björn Persson @ 2006-06-20 7:51 ` gshapovalov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: gshapovalov @ 2006-06-20 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Björn Persson wrote: > Hmmmmm? Then the typical "you don't even have the right to sneeze" EULA > wouldn't have any legal force either. Well, accordingly to what I have read on the subject they do not. In fact it usually is worded like this: EULA(s) will not hold up in the court, should the case be raised. And I seem to remember the claims that this was indeed already demonstrated on some occasions. However I am skimpy on the details, sorry. And, as usual - do not take anything I am saying about legalities seriously - check everything you need to rely on yourself.. George ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: GtkAda License Question 2006-06-19 11:48 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-19 20:28 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 6:12 ` Björn Persson @ 2006-06-20 7:48 ` gshapovalov 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: gshapovalov @ 2006-06-20 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Now, I think it is reasonable to presume that: No, it is not, you *should* contact AdaCore and ask, see below. > - GtkAda GPL edition (both version 2.4.1 and version "gps-3.1.3" are > included) is pure GPL > - GtkAda 2.4.0 from libre is GMGPL No, it is not. When repackaging it for Gentoo I actually raised the issue with AdaCore (exactly because of that contradiction of headers having the GM excerpt but claiming pure GPL in some file, *not* COPYING, which was missing). The answer was that it is pure GPL, as everything distributed off libre2 site. Although, if you got it from the original libre site (is it still functional? It seems to redirect me to libre2 nowadays) you might still have the GMGPL version, although I doubt there is any actual difference. They don't seem to care much about packaging stuff cleanly.. Of course you should not take my words for anything and coact them yourself. You are held legally responsible for any action taken on my advice ;). The added benefit of more people contacting them is that this may finally force them to update the documentation to reflect the present situation more clearly.. > - GtkAda from CVS is GMGPL (the headers have the exception.) Again and for the same reason, I would not presume that, or in fact anything. With them it seems it is obligatory to ask.. > In Debian, all libraries are GMGPL, except ASIS 2006 which will soon > arrive in Etch under pure GPL. Use Debian. Debian is good for your > mental health :) Um, in the view of the above I am not sure you can distribute them as GMGPL ;). George ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-06-21 21:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-06-19 11:11 GtkAda License Question M E Leypold 2006-06-19 11:48 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-19 20:28 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 5:11 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-20 8:46 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2006-06-20 9:57 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 17:11 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2006-06-21 18:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-06-21 21:23 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-20 13:31 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-20 13:42 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-20 15:03 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 15:25 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 6:12 ` Björn Persson 2006-06-20 7:51 ` gshapovalov 2006-06-20 7:48 ` gshapovalov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox