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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c23d953faf0768ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-07 19:38:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Questions about Ada Core Technologies Date: 07 Apr 2004 22:37:20 -0400 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <87oeq4vkod.fsf@insalien.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1081391850 93074 212.85.156.195 (8 Apr 2004 02:37:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 02:37:30 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6833 Date: 2004-04-07T22:37:20-04:00 Jacob Sparre Andersen writes: > Stephen Leake wrote: > > > So even if ACT was requesting that customers do not distribute > > non-public releases, it would not be violating the GPL > > Ignoring the difference between "requesting" and "requiring", it > _would_ be a violation of the GNU GPL, since the GNU GPL allows people > to redistribute binaries (as long as they also redistribute the > corresponding source code). Hmm. You didn't quote my full post, so you've lost the definition of "it" that we are discussing here. Here is the original statement: > - Does ACT request that customers not distribute copies of GNAT Pro? Hmm. Your question caused me to go re-read the GPL. Here's the relevant paragraphs: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided ... That does indeed say that if you have a copy of the binary or source, you may distribute it. Note that it does _not_ say you _must_ distribute it, which some people seem to think, sometimes. So I stand corrected; ACT may not _require_ that customers not give copies of GNAT to anyone. However, they may _request_ it, for the "not ready to distribute" reason I gave. > But since FSF and ACT seem to be on friendly terms, I doubt that ACT > is doing anything that isn't completely by the book, when it comes > to GNU GPL. Right. As I said, there is nothing in the customer contract with ACT about not distributing GNAT. But they do informally request it. -- -- Stephe