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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "G.B." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What is the best license to use for open source software? Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:36:51 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad> <199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com> <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b96887e80893c84a90c3007226ca0d1c"; logging-data="23255"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xO1mDD+EL/2hbW7XLAmyXe+ilXM5bSDY=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:eXuRwt23iT4QC/2jC/17zTLAnxE= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24363 Date: 2015-01-05T14:36:51+01:00 List-Id: On 04.01.15 23:13, David Botton wrote: > Clarity doesn't come from making "believe" a GPL run-time designed to prevent commercial use is not shareware. Clarity would be good, indeed. Implied universal quantifiers about licensing variables are the source of many misunderstandings here, I think. Granted, these are a requisite of software politics. "Shareware" and its diverse associations in one's mind seems an unrelated issue to me, and, moreover, the notion has the potential of creating confusion whilst there could be a chance to point out, once again after many years, the problem of Ada 2005 pricing in general. As an example of commercial GPL software, our company depends on some GPLed source commercially in products that we sell to a customer; however, the contract between the customer and us requires that we always deliver the sources, anyway. This commercial GPL situation may be particular, but it exists. It is politics to confuse "commercial" and "GPL" in general propositions. This confusion doesn't help with deciding whether or not FSF GCC is a viable option if one need to learn about the implications of the linking exception. It is clear from the GPL that *if* the commercial use of the GPLed software should evolve into a *closed* *source* distribution of derivative works, *then* the latter use is illegal. The GPL virus prevents these illicit dealings in software, in this particular case. The mataphor invoking "virus" becomes increasingly inadequate, paradoxical actually, but I understand the political intent. But is it so hard to admit a preference for a business model that eventually is, yes, *closed* *source*? I.e., no matter how free the compiler is or how open source the libraries are, the final products should be copy protected! The GPL's copyleft openly prevents some kinds of copy protection. The linking exception removes that in many cases. Clarity? I'd find the licensing issues and business issues much more clearly expressed if arguments would stop using the big words and the free floating comparatives. For example, are these facts? - AdaCore support pricing, which entails the GPL linking exception, is incompatible with most small businesses. - If all Ada 2005 pricing is incompatible with small business, then small business and Ada 2005 are incompatible. Now imagine RR Software's compiler being updated and targeting the LLVM. What would your preferences be, then, WRT licensing and pricing?