* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch [not found] <mailman.122.1151442302.13640.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org> @ 2006-06-28 13:55 ` Carroll, Andrew 2006-06-28 19:57 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Carroll, Andrew @ 2006-06-28 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada >> Georg quoted >> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the >> headers say. If this were true then why can't "a person" just change the headers to say whatever they want the headers to say? Also, if this the common understanding then why is this understanding not written in the "free software" licensing headers (for any level of "General Purpose")? Sounds to me like the issue isn't what the headers say/contain or complying with the headers. The problem is in the fact that there's really no regulation of what the headers say or who complies or doesn't. Compare this issue with say the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. If my right to free speech was just a superficial header (had no regulation) then the right to free speech I claim could be contended either way with no one having a basis for their argument other than a superficial header that was never enforced or regulated. Just my two cents worth. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 13:55 ` Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch Carroll, Andrew @ 2006-06-28 19:57 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 23:12 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw) "Carroll, Andrew" <andrew.carroll@okstate.edu> writes: >>> Georg quoted >>> - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what > the >>> headers say. > > If this were true then why can't "a person" just change the headers to > say whatever they want the headers to say? > > Also, if this the common understanding then why is this understanding > not written in the "free software" licensing headers (for any level of > "General Purpose")? > > Sounds to me like the issue isn't what the headers say/contain or > complying with the headers. The problem is in the fact that there's > really no regulation of what the headers say or who complies or doesn't. No, the issue is the one you described in your first sentence. The headers or COPYING file have no legal force, precisely because you cannot prove that they apply to the software, and that they were written by the author of the software. So, what Robert Dewar said is: to be sure, you must ask the author. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 19:57 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 23:12 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > No, the issue is the one you described in your first sentence. The > headers or COPYING file have no legal force, precisely because you > cannot prove that they apply to the software, and that they were > written by the author of the software. So, what Robert Dewar said is: > to be sure, you must ask the author. But can you rely on the author? Perhaps he is drunk at the time he answers or it's really the cleaning woman using his/her computer (illegally of course). I mean -- where should all that end? It is hardly believable that the author(s) (say ACT ...) distributed the libraries in question _years_ without aver noticing those copyright headers and COPYING files. If they did and left them in place (or well, did them put there themselves), that would constitute a declaration of intent, which IMHO seems mor convincing than some old e-mail I get from adacore.com: After all, E-Mail headers can be forged. But years of bootleg copies of GtkAda with copyright headers inserted without the knowledge of ACT, distributed even from the ACT site. Ridiculous. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch @ 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 13:46 ` Alex R. Mosteo ` (5 more replies) 0 siblings, 6 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw) I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their servers. In summary: - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the headers say. - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in source-only form. - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them (they are not required to sign anything, of course). As you all know, Gentoo has switched to the pure GPL for all Ada libraries, in accordance with these statements. IANAL but this seems to be the only legal route, so Debian will follow suit and switch to the pure GPL for future versions of the libraries. ASIS-for-GNAT is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation. Theoretically, I could ask the FSF for a GMGPL license, and maybe get the sources from gnat-asis.sourceforge.net, but that's unlikely to work with GCC 4.1 without major work. So, switch to pure GPL. AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee. Only source is AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. AWS was written by Dmitryi Anisimkov and Pascal Obry. Neither of them being an AdaCore employee (at least AFAIK), there may be a way to acquire a GMGPL license from them. They may also decide to fork the project on a new repository. Pascal's site [1] has a download page that points to AdaCore's web site. In the mean time, AdaCore is the only source, so switch to pure GPL. Florist was written by Florida State University; it is possible to get a version ported to GCC 4.1 from http://gnat-florist.sourceforge.net, so I'll do that. GMGPL. GLADE was written jointly by AdaCore, the ENST, A. Strohmeier, T. Wolf and J. Kienzle. Only source is AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. GtkAda was written by Emmanuel Briot, Joel Brobecker, Arnaud Charlet, and Nicolas Setton, who are all AdaCore employees. Only source is AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. libgnat is GMGPL, since we obtained it from the FSF's repository as part of GCC 4.1. PolyORB is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation. The situation is exactly the same as with ASIS: the FSF doesn't seem to be aware of PolyORB, the only place to get it from is AdaCore, and that's pure GPL. PolyORB has a home page [2], but the download link points to AdaCore. (that doesn't matter for now, since Debian does not provide PolyORB). Templates_Parser, a library that is incorporated into both AWS and GPS, is copyright (c) AdaCore. It seems that the author, Pascal Obry, has assigned copyright to them. If that's untrue (and the headers are in error), then my remarks on AWS apply to Templates_Parser, too. (Debian includes Templates_Parser as part of AWS and GPS, but not as a separate package). XML/Ada was written by Emmanuel Briot (an AdaCore employee), Christophe Baillon and Martin Krischik. Only source is AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. AdaCore, or AdaCore employees, are authors of AUnit, GLADE, GtkAda, and XML/Ada. They might volunteer a GMGPL version of their work, but I'm not going to ask them for one. Since GtkAda has been mentioned more than any other library, I'd like to point out that Debian already includes two alternatives: - AdaBindX [3], a binding to X11 and LessTif by Hans-Frieder Vogt which is under GMGPL. X11 is under X11 (MIT) license, and LessTif[4] is under LGPL. But AdaBindX has not been updated since 2000, and is not portable. And not as good-looking as GTK+. According to Debian's Popularity Contest [5], this package has zero users, so I am tempted to drop it from Etch. Speak up if you want me to keep it. - TASH, the Tcl Ada SHell [6], includes a binding to Tk; it is available as a Debian package, under GMGPL, from Ada-France [7] and AdaWorld [8]. TASH is portable, but has not been updated since 2003. [1] http://www.obry.net [2] http://polyorb.objectweb.org/ [3] http://home.arcor.de/hfvogt/programming.html [4] http://www.lesstif.org/ [5] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=libadabindx [6] http://www.adatcl.com/ [7] http://www.ada-france.org/debian/ [8] http://www.adaworld.com/debian/ Thoughts, comments, offers to help? -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 13:46 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2006-06-27 14:40 ` M E Leypold ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Alex R. Mosteo @ 2006-06-27 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > servers. In summary: > (snip) > [1] http://www.obry.net > [2] http://polyorb.objectweb.org/ > [3] http://home.arcor.de/hfvogt/programming.html > [4] http://www.lesstif.org/ > [5] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=libadabindx > [6] http://www.adatcl.com/ > [7] http://www.ada-france.org/debian/ > [8] http://www.adaworld.com/debian/ > > Thoughts, comments, offers to help? Thanks for the valuable summary of the situation. I don't have anything particular to offer, except that I'm now using a debian derivative for my office and home computers, so I closely follow these matters. I am also interested in the Ada GPL community, so I'd like to volunteer in the future, time permitting. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 13:46 ` Alex R. Mosteo @ 2006-06-27 14:40 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 18:57 ` Ed Falis 2006-06-27 21:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 15:00 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > servers. In summary: Ah, we'll see. Obviously the letter to me is still in transit. > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the > headers say. > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in > source-only form. So, if I get the source from ACT CVS it's GPL and if I get it from one of the Archives somehwere out there, it has GMGPL. I'm talking GtkAda 2.2.1 and GtkAda 1.x specifically where there is strong indication that it has been distributed as GMGPL (by whomever ...). > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so > I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. Please. Also It would be useful to ask AdaCore to document the provenience of the sources they distribute: At which distribution points the got the source, what are their assurances that they are allowed to distribute the sources under GPL and so on :-). What their baseline version is (that is from which version on they started to "contribute" to the code base). > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them > (they are not required to sign anything, of course). I think they are required to say very clearly on which basis they think they have the right to distribute the software they haven't completely written themselves (which applies to most from libre2 AFAIS). > As you all know, Gentoo has switched to the pure GPL for all Ada > libraries, in accordance with these statements. > IANAL but this seems to be the only legal route, so Debian will > follow suit and switch to the pure GPL for future versions of the > libraries. > ASIS-for-GNAT is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation. > Theoretically, I could ask the FSF for a GMGPL license, and maybe get > the sources from gnat-asis.sourceforge.net, but that's unlikely to > work with GCC 4.1 without major work. So, switch to pure GPL. As far ASIS is concerned: I consider that to belong to the tool sector, so GPL is no problem. ASIS is, in a sense an extension of GNAT. I did not grok all of you statement here, though: What exactly is the situation wrt to ASIS: > AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee. Only source is > AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer: In my eyes GPL is OK here. > AWS was written by Dmitryi Anisimkov and Pascal Obry. Neither of them > being an AdaCore employee (at least AFAIK), there may be a way to > acquire a GMGPL license from them. They may also decide to fork the > project on a new repository. Pascal's site [1] has a download page > that points to AdaCore's web site. In the mean time, AdaCore is the > only source, so switch to pure GPL. Older Versions where GMGPL AFAIK. We should ask the authors for either a GMGPL version (from their archives) or at least for the last GMGPL version. > Florist was written by Florida State University; it is possible to get > a version ported to GCC 4.1 from http://gnat-florist.sourceforge.net, > so I'll do that. GMGPL. This is, I think the same version as 3.15p as also available from Baker's site. Since ACT did hardly anything with their GPLed florist apart from removing the linking exception and adding a copyright statement of their own, I'd judge that version still good (after all: POSIC hasn't changed, it's mostly a question how it will build on various platforms). > GLADE was written jointly by AdaCore, the ENST, A. Strohmeier, T. Wolf > and J. Kienzle. Only source is AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. I agree as far as the tools themselves are concerned. But I can get a version of glade-3.15p from non-ACT servers and (if we really want to start splitting hair then: here) I can see linking exceptions in a number of files. Perhaps these are exactly the runtime that gets linked to client and server. This aspect is exactly why I'd really want to know more about the copyright of single files in that whole mess. > GtkAda was written by Emmanuel Briot, Joel Brobecker, Arnaud Charlet, > and Nicolas Setton, who are all AdaCore employees. Only source is > AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. So there has never been a GMGPL version? Never ever? I find that odd. I suppose you can now never get Emmanuel Briot, Joel Brobecker, Arnaud Charlet to admit that there was ever a GMGPL version? As far as past versions are concerned, I pull the following Texts from my archive, which have accomanied GtkAda on libre (the old one) for some time: Version 1.3: This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda. Version 2.0.0: This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda. Version 2.2.1: This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda. Version 2.4.0: This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on gtk and GtkAda. I suppose if I just get the version of GtkAda from my archive, I'll be covered by GMGPL, or what? Or if I get this one: http://www.adapower.net/libre/gtkada/GtkAda-2.0.0.tgz ACT didn't even bother to change the source of 2.4.0 distributed from libre2. The just somehow lost (not even substituted) the license notice when they started to mirror libre.act-europe.fr. All this has a positively Orwellian touch (especially if I factor in the now well known Robert Dewar quote): Changing the past retroactively. > libgnat is GMGPL, since we obtained it from the FSF's repository as > part of GCC 4.1. Yep. > PolyORB is copyright (c) Free Software Foundation. The situation is > exactly the same as with ASIS: the FSF doesn't seem to be aware of > PolyORB, the only place to get it from is AdaCore, and that's pure > GPL. PolyORB has a home page [2], but the download link points to > AdaCore. (that doesn't matter for now, since Debian does not provide > PolyORB). polyorb/README -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this -- -- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, -- -- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to b -- This even in the version obtained from ACT. Other version can be gotten from FTP-Servers /= ACT's. If I go to http://polyorb.objectweb.org I find "As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this ..." and "PolyORB 1.3r (2005-06-15) (...) This is the latest release of PolyORB. Release is a snapshot of current research work on middleware architecture carried out by the ENST and the LIP6-SRC. (...) Note: this snapshot is distributed on Libre's page." It seems the copyright somehow gets lost in between objectweb.org and ACT. I find it hardly credible that the agreement (of whatever kind) between objectweb and ACT is, that ACT distributes under "pure GPL". I'd suggest that the community ask objectweb for either subversion access or the last GMGPL snapshot. > Templates_Parser, a library that is incorporated into both AWS and > GPS, is copyright (c) AdaCore. It seems that the author, Pascal Obry, > has assigned copyright to them. If that's untrue (and the headers are > in error), ACT is in the habit of rewriting headers. > then my remarks on AWS apply to Templates_Parser, too. (Debian > includes Templates_Parser as part of AWS and GPS, but not as a > separate package). > XML/Ada was written by Emmanuel Briot (an AdaCore employee), ... > Christophe Baillon and Martin Krischik. Only source is AdaCore, so > switch to pure GPL. From the xmlada README: "As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from ..." ACT might be in their rights to strip the linking exception from all source they distribute from their site. But since at least a part of that software got distributed under different licenses earlier, I doubt they can take back the linking eception on all that copies floating around on various backup media and ftp servers. Not retroactively. That also applies to all the other packages where the copyright is now being stripped retroactivly. > AdaCore, or AdaCore employees, are authors of AUnit, GLADE, GtkAda, > and XML/Ada. They might volunteer a GMGPL version of their work, but > I'm not going to ask them for one. I understand that. Is BTW, anybody here who's intrested in constituting a GMGPL baseline of some core libraries? > Since GtkAda has been mentioned more than any other library, I'd like > to point out that Debian already includes two alternatives: Ludovico. I understand that. But: Gtk+ has been LGPL for very good reasons and part of the success of Gnome is based on that. In my opinion the future on Unix/Linux is Gtk+/Pango/Cairo. And it comes as a special bonus that these libs are portable. Everything else is probably good to hack some tool now, but not to build something that can survive in for the next 10 years. I'm not talking about a single program but about a code base. As I very small example, I've developed (among other things) a flowing label widget (Text in label flows on resizing) for GtkAda. I wouldn't see any sense in developing (and releasing to the community) infrastructure of that kind for what I consider a niche solution. > - AdaBindX [3], a binding to X11 and LessTif by Hans-Frieder Vogt > which is under GMGPL. X11 is under X11 (MIT) license, and > LessTif[4] is under LGPL. But AdaBindX has not been updated since > 2000, and is not portable. > And not as good-looking as GTK+. > According to Debian's Popularity Contest [5], this package has zero > users, so I am tempted to drop it from Etch. Speak up if you want > me to keep it. Just announce it again when you drop it. A X11-Binding would have been nice for experiments, especially for trying to write a Ada native widget set, but that not here, rather science fiction (or more likely alternate history ...), so ... > > - TASH, the Tcl Ada SHell [6], includes a binding to Tk; it is > available as a Debian package, under GMGPL, from Ada-France [7] and > AdaWorld [8]. TASH is portable, but has not been updated since > 2003. > Thoughts, comments, offers to help? I'd like to help establishing GMGPL libraries (for libraries that get linked into distributed executables, GPL is OK with me for the tool chain). My thoughts, rather jumbled, I fear I've offered above. Sorry for all this. I feel like single handedly killing Ada on Debian for asking that stupid licensing question at the beginning. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 14:40 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 18:57 ` Ed Falis 2006-06-28 0:58 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 21:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2006-06-27 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: >> AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee. Only source is >> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. > > Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer: > In my eyes GPL is OK here. Note that AUnit has been GPL from its first release in 2000. Since its intent is user "in-house" testing rather than any kind of re-distribution of test cases, I considered it the appropriate license. - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 18:57 ` Ed Falis @ 2006-06-28 0:58 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:45 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Falis <falis@verizon.net> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > >> AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee. Only source is > >> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. > > > > Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer: > > In my eyes GPL is OK here. > > Note that AUnit has been GPL from its first release in 2000. Since its > intent is user "in-house" testing rather than any kind of > re-distribution of test cases, I considered it the appropriate license. Ed, I agree. Tools for inhouse use are appropriately GPL IMHO. We don't want anyone to run away with tools chain after all :-). The issues here -- where all that started -- are different (not with new licenses but with the possible retroactive change of old licenses, license changes on unchanged source, missing or misleading license notices and a general amnesia). I'm sure you'll see that after wading through all that fallout. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 0:58 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 19:45 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes: > Ed Falis <falis@verizon.net> writes: > >> M E Leypold wrote: >> >> >> AUnit was written by Ed Falis, an AdaCore employee. Only source is >> >> AdaCore, so switch to pure GPL. >> > >> > Also a tool, wouldn't get linked into an executable for the customer: >> > In my eyes GPL is OK here. >> >> Note that AUnit has been GPL from its first release in 2000. Since its >> intent is user "in-house" testing rather than any kind of >> re-distribution of test cases, I considered it the appropriate license. > > Ed, I agree. > > Tools for inhouse use are appropriately GPL IMHO. We don't want anyone > to run away with tools chain after all :-). The issues here -- where > all that started -- are different (not with new licenses but with the > possible retroactive change of old licenses, license changes on > unchanged source, missing or misleading license notices and a general > amnesia). > > I'm sure you'll see that after wading through all that fallout. > > Regards -- Markus Ed is the author of AUnit, he was just correcting an oversight I made in the post that started this thread. He is well aware of all the issues involved. BTW, thanks for the correction, Ed. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 14:40 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 18:57 ` Ed Falis @ 2006-06-27 21:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 1:02 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes: > Ludovic Brenta writes: >> - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so >> I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. > > Please. Also It would be useful to ask AdaCore to document the > provenience of the sources they distribute: At which distribution > points the got the source, what are their assurances that they are > allowed to distribute the sources under GPL and so on :-). What their > baseline version is (that is from which version on they started to > "contribute" to the code base). I'd rather spend my time on the technical side of things. I'm a software engineer :-) I'll see how much interest there is in GMGPL versions of libraries, and decide then. You can ask these authors directly if you want to. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 21:10 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 1:02 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > M E Leypold writes: > > Ludovic Brenta writes: > >> - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so > >> I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. > > > > Please. Also It would be useful to ask AdaCore to document the > > provenience of the sources they distribute: At which distribution > > points the got the source, what are their assurances that they are > > allowed to distribute the sources under GPL and so on :-). What their > > baseline version is (that is from which version on they started to > > "contribute" to the code base). > > I'd rather spend my time on the technical side of things. I'm a Me too. > software engineer :-) So am I. Unfortunately clean beaselines seem to be required to sort that mess out, excapt if you want to go to GPL in all aspects (which I won't, I'll rather drop Ada). > I'll see how much interest there is in GMGPL versions of libraries, > and decide then. You can ask these authors directly if you want to. I'll poll at c.l.a within the next week on how many people are intrested in GMGPL baselines. If there is intrest I'll try to establish them / ask authors. If you want to poll for intrest in GMGPL versions of the libraries, please do so. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 13:46 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2006-06-27 14:40 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 15:00 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 18:39 ` Michael Bode ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-27 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > servers. In summary: > > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the > headers say. > > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in > source-only form. > > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so > I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. > > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them > (they are not required to sign anything, of course). I'm a little confused by all this... Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from what you understand: 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked? 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL? 3) the licences were granted and are still in force? 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)? (does this cover the basic possibilities?) the code in question being GtkAda, libgnat, GLADE, etc. In some cases (GtkAda?), the original authors transferred copyright to AdaCore(?) - did the original authors revoke or repudiate the licences in effecting this transfer? Thanks. -- Dr. Adrian Wrigley, Cambridge. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:00 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 15:38 ` M E Leypold ` (6 more replies) 0 siblings, 7 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote : > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > > > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > > servers. In summary: > > > > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the > > headers say. > > > > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in > > source-only form. > > > > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so > > I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. > > > > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them > > (they are not required to sign anything, of course). > > I'm a little confused by all this... > > Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from > what you understand: > > 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked? Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic instantiation" exception is revoked. > 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL? They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me, or anyone else, for that. IANAL. > 3) the licences were granted and are still in force? I don't know. I asked but they wouldn't go into specifics. Ask them for yourself, if you're concerned. > 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the copyright holder has legal force. > 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)? Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and certify, but not in writing :( > (does this cover the basic possibilities?) > > the code in question being GtkAda, libgnat, GLADE, etc. > > In some cases (GtkAda?), the original authors transferred copyright to > AdaCore(?) - did the original authors revoke or repudiate the licences > in effecting this transfer? As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask each author individually. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 15:38 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote : > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > > > > > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > > > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > > > servers. In summary: > > > > > > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the > > > headers say. > > > > > > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in > > > source-only form. > > > > > > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so > > > I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. > > > > > > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them > > > (they are not required to sign anything, of course). > > > > I'm a little confused by all this... > > > > Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from > > what you understand: > > > > 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked? > > Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic > instantiation" exception is revoked. > > > 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL? > > They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch > took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am > indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's Considering that act-europe.fr carried the GMGPL license notice for GtkAda et al until 2005/2 at least, there is nothing to worry about (except the attitude of ACT). > software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in > fact I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of > the copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a > legal perspective. They say. > Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me, > or anyone else, for that. IANAL. IANAL2. > > > 3) the licences were granted and are still in force? > > I don't know. I asked but they wouldn't go into specifics. Ask them for > yourself, if you're concerned. > > > 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? > > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the > copyright holder has legal force. They say. > > > 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)? > > Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and > certify, but not in writing :( So they will take even that back in 2 years from now? ... Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 15:38 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-27 17:45 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov ` (3 more replies) 2006-06-27 18:50 ` Michael Bode ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 4 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-27 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:28:38 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote : >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> >> > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud >> > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their >> > servers. In summary: >> > >> > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the >> > headers say. >> > >> > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in >> > source-only form. >> > >> > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so >> > I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. >> > >> > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them >> > (they are not required to sign anything, of course). >> >> I'm a little confused by all this... >> >> Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from >> what you understand: >> >> 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked? > > Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic > instantiation" exception is revoked. > >> 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL? > > They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch > took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am > indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's > software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact > I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the > copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal > perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me, > or anyone else, for that. IANAL. > >> 3) the licences were granted and are still in force? > > I don't know. I asked but they wouldn't go into specifics. Ask them for > yourself, if you're concerned. > >> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? > > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the > copyright holder has legal force. > >> 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)? > > Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and > certify, but not in writing :( > >> (does this cover the basic possibilities?) >> >> the code in question being GtkAda, libgnat, GLADE, etc. >> >> In some cases (GtkAda?), the original authors transferred copyright to >> AdaCore(?) - did the original authors revoke or repudiate the licences >> in effecting this transfer? > > As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask > each author individually. I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting apparent changes in licensing conditions. The issues raised here are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences. Under English law (and presumably most other places), signed statements are not required to form a contract. In particular, if the parties behaved and believed that there is a contract then one exists. Evidence such as files, ftp sites, emails etc. can help support the claim that a contract existed. Surely the behaviour of the authors and users backs the claim that licences were granted? Signatures on bits of paper might help, but still don't provide a full guarantee. IANAL. As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable, non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence. The GMGPL terms add to this, but don't change these basic features. I am at a loss to understand what basis there is for revoking the licences already issued. As a party to the licence contract between myself and the authors, I feel aggrieved. I have kept to my side of the bargain. I'm not convinced they have kept to theirs. Some people here will want a formal opinion. I don't feel I have need or resources for a professional view myself. But I am being made extremely wary of exposing myself to the possible legal risks involved in *any* substantive business project involving these software components. The way these licences seem to be being revoked, changed or withdrawn, without adequate explanation is certainly a breach of the implied social "contract" created when software is published. -- Adrian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-27 17:45 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-06-27 21:18 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-06-27 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:40:51 GMT, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote: > Under English law (and presumably most other places), signed statements > are not required to form a contract. In particular, if the parties > behaved and believed that there is a contract then one exists. > Evidence such as files, ftp sites, emails etc. can help support > the claim that a contract existed. Surely the behaviour of > the authors and users backs the claim that licences were granted? > Signatures on bits of paper might help, but still don't provide > a full guarantee. IANAL. Exactly. That was my question in another thread. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-27 17:45 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-06-27 21:18 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 0:45 ` M E Leypold ` (2 more replies) 2006-06-28 0:42 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:24 ` Simon Wright 3 siblings, 3 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Dr. Adrian Wrigley writes: > I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting > apparent changes in licensing conditions. The issues raised here > are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees > and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences. Yes :( But it also applies to non-free EULAs, or any kind of license whatsoever. It even applies to the movie I purchased on DVD a couple of days ago. The lawyers are after us! Run! Run! > Under English law (and presumably most other places), signed statements > are not required to form a contract. In particular, if the parties > behaved and believed that there is a contract then one exists. > Evidence such as files, ftp sites, emails etc. can help support > the claim that a contract existed. Surely the behaviour of > the authors and users backs the claim that licences were granted? > Signatures on bits of paper might help, but still don't provide > a full guarantee. IANAL. A license is not the same as a contract. A contract has to have measurable obligations for both parties; a license is only a grant of rights to the licensee, possibly without compensation. No compensation, no contract, either written or implied. > As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable, > non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence. The GMGPL terms > add to this, but don't change these basic features. Right. That's why I think Debian is in the clear as regards the older versions of AdaCore's software that are presently in the distribution. > I am at a loss to understand what basis there is for revoking the > licences already issued. As a party to the licence > contract between myself and the authors, I feel aggrieved. > I have kept to my side of the bargain. I'm not convinced they > have kept to theirs. Since they received no compensation for the software, there is no bargain, no contract, ergo they have no obligations. > Some people here will want a formal opinion. I don't feel I have > need or resources for a professional view myself. But I am being > made extremely wary of exposing myself to the possible legal > risks involved in *any* substantive business project involving > these software components. The way these licences seem to be > being revoked, changed or withdrawn, without adequate explanation > is certainly a breach of the implied social "contract" created > when software is published. Yes, but that applies to all licenses, even non-free licenses from well-known vendors. The only thing that can provide assurances is a contract. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 21:18 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 0:45 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 0:48 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 10:51 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Dr. Adrian Wrigley writes: > > I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting > > apparent changes in licensing conditions. The issues raised here > > are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees > > and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences. > > Yes :( But it also applies to non-free EULAs, or any kind of license > A license is not the same as a contract. A contract has to have Before we talk so all inclusive on contract an licnesing laws, I'd remind evryone that GtkAda has not been distributed in the US only. European contract law, German contract law and the basic concepts behind it are very different. I do not say, that we shouldn't discuss our respective rights. But even if the conclusion might hold in another jurisdiction, the reasoning might be unparsable. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 21:18 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 0:45 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:48 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 10:51 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > Yes, but that applies to all licenses, even non-free licenses from > well-known vendors. The only thing that can provide assurances is a > contract. I disagree. I am not a lawyer, but a public declaration of intent to grant the public certain rights should actually suffice to constitute a right. That is the way "putting something into the public domain" works and even if the GPL is more complex I doubt that you have to have a contract to have something to stand on legally. But IANAL. Don't take that as legal advice. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 21:18 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 0:45 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 0:48 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 10:51 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-28 11:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 13:31 ` M E Leypold 2 siblings, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-28 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:18:37 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > A license is not the same as a contract. A contract has to have > measurable obligations for both parties; a license is only a grant of > rights to the licensee, possibly without compensation. No > compensation, no contract, either written or implied. After I sent my message, I found this article: http://www.advogato.org/article/606.html I have changed my position slightly. It doesn't seem clear to "the experts" whether GPL is perpetual or revocable or not :( And it doesn't seem clear whether it is a simple copyright licence, or is part of a contract :( But it is clear that significanty different interpretations would be placed on the GPL by different legal systems and different (US) states :( I do believe that there is "consideration" required of a (English) contract. GPL *obligates* the licensee to make available source code to everyone to whom a binary is distributed. And it *obligates* the licensee to license source modifications to the recipients of binaries, and *obligates* the licensee to grant the rights to pass the source to third parties. These obligations on the licensee can be extremely valuable to the licensor. But the lack of any obligation on the licensee to distribute in the first place may invalidate the contingent obligation. Perhaps the contract is formed when the licensee takes actions of possible benefit to the licensor (such as distribution, modification etc)? In the end, I don't know how important the contract question is, but it is unquestionable that damages are caused to parties who seem to have lost rights to distribute their Ada programs by the recent changes. The Free Software Definition from gnu.org says: "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free." It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software that GPL is not revocable. The Ada software in question does not meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really have been revoked. The strange thing is that nobody seems to benefit from the changes and the consequent FUD :( -- Dr. Adrian Wrigley, Cambridge. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 10:51 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-28 11:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 11:21 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 13:36 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 13:31 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:51 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote: > "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long > as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to > revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the > software is not free." > > It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software > that GPL is not revocable. The Ada software in question does not > meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really > have been revoked. There is no instance of anything being revoked, AFAICS, if AdaCore is entitled to drop the exception from the source they distribute, which might feel like something has been revoked. I doubt this is an adequate description of the (GM)GPL legal situation. The license text is the GPL in either case, GPL or GPL with the special exception. If any license has been granted to anyone, and they have been told their license has been revoked, although they have done nothing wrong, please speak up. > The strange thing is that nobody seems to benefit from the changes > and the consequent FUD :( Right. This is why this thread should not continue to try to construct or reconstruct, or invent, what supposedly was or is legally relevant information in some past, freely mixing the past and the present. All we have is hints, and AdaCore notes from two different points in time. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 11:14 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 11:21 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 12:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 13:36 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 13:14 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:51 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote: > > It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software > > that GPL is not revocable. The Ada software in question does not > > meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really > > have been revoked. > > There is no instance of anything being revoked, AFAICS, if AdaCore > is entitled to drop the exception from the source they distribute, > which might feel like something has been revoked. I doubt this > is an adequate description of the (GM)GPL legal situation. Does someone know whether the right to use something is the same as a license, and on what continent, or island? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 11:21 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 12:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote : > Does someone know whether the right to use something is the > same as a license, and on what continent, or island? The right to use falls outside of the scope of copyright law. Copyright law only deals with the right to copy, modify and redistribute. This is explained in the preliminary notes of the GPL. If a licensor wants to restrict or control usage of their software, the only way they can do this is by signing a contract with the licensee. For example, Java's license has, or used to have, a clause that forbids use in the nuclear industry or in life-critical applications. Such clause is null and void from a legal perspective, because the licensor has no right to control or restrict usage of their software, but only copying, modification, and distribution. (there are of course good technical reasons why only a pointy-haired manager would use Java in life-critical applications, but that's not the point). -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 11:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 11:21 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 13:36 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:51 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote: > > > "In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long > > as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to > > revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the > > software is not free." > > > > It seems pretty clear from the general industry practice in software > > that GPL is not revocable. The Ada software in question does not > > meet this definition of Free Software if the GMGPL licences really > > have been revoked. > > There is no instance of anything being revoked, AFAICS, if AdaCore > is entitled to drop the exception from the source they distribute, > which might feel like something has been revoked. I doubt this > is an adequate description of the (GM)GPL legal situation. Come on. They don't want to admit they ever distributed under GMGPL. Put that together with their theory of "you must always check with te licensor", than that is nearest you can get to a revocation, without actually saying so. Of course it's none, but it makes FUD. It's not good enough for telling third parties that a given lib is under GMGPL. > The license text is the GPL in either case, GPL or GPL with the > special exception. We know, that you don't want to see the difference. Since you don't care for it, you'd also not see that anything changed. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 10:51 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-28 11:14 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 13:31 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > The strange thing is that nobody seems to benefit from the changes > and the consequent FUD :( Exactly. I still wonder why AdaCore doesn't speak up clearly, saying when the license change occurred, letting the old versions under GMGPL (even if they now come from their site). Yes, there is a certain probability of a community supported version arising. It won't hurt them, since I don't think those wanting to buy Gnat Pro support would really want a community supported version (read: slowly maintained, no support on demand, no new Gtk features) anyway. My guess would be that they actually forgot the anon cvs and forgot to strip the linking excaption there and are now entrenching themselves in a probably untenable legal theory that (a) the license notices in the files have no meaning whatsoever and (b) everything is GPL now, even the old versions, because they don't want anyone to become wise on that and just compile himself GtkAda from the CVS source to get a GMGPL library. (IANAL). I'd wish that a really big player would do exactly that. It'd be against the spririt of free software (I usually try even to get the authors agreement if I'm mirroring sources from their distribution sites) and an act of blatant and arrogant highway robbery, but it would be a sort of just punishment. That wont happen, I know, but one can dream. (I bet it would happen if I forgot to put my license notices right). Looking at the CVS I tend to think that even the 2.8.x source should still be GMGPL mostly. But IANAL. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-27 17:45 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-06-27 21:18 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 0:42 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:24 ` Simon Wright 3 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > > > > As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask > > each author individually. > > I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting > apparent changes in licensing conditions. The issues raised here Yes. He has my compassion. Just to find myself in the same position and since I cannot trust mere rumor on c.l.a. (remember: Have to ask the licensor, directly!) I have written to ACT to ask the same or perhaps slightly different questions. I looking forward to my answer(s). > are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees > and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences. > Under English law (and presumably most other places), signed statements > are not required to form a contract. In particular, if the parties > behaved and believed that there is a contract then one exists. > Evidence such as files, ftp sites, emails etc. can help support > the claim that a contract existed. Surely the behaviour of > the authors and users backs the claim that licences were granted? > Signatures on bits of paper might help, but still don't provide > a full guarantee. IANAL. I agree. > As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable, > non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence. The GMGPL terms > add to this, but don't change these basic features. That was my impression. > I am at a loss to understand what basis there is for revoking the > licences already issued. As a party to the licence Well -- it seems, the situation is more complex. The source they distribute now is unchanged BUT with another license (IMHO you can only drop the exception clause when you change something, but perhaps that does not apply to the copyright owner). They don't say the other licenses where not GMGPL or are revoked, They only don't remember. > contract between myself and the authors, I feel aggrieved. So I've been feeling for some time, especially since I have been repeatedly lectured here on how unreasonable I've been to have expected more than GPL .. -- What? I've not been expecting GMGPL, I do have copies of web pages from ACT _telling_ me that I'm licensing unter GMGPL and I might be forgiven that I find that loss of memory on ACTs part slightly unsettling. > I have kept to my side of the bargain. I'm not convinced they > have kept to theirs. :-) > Some people here will want a formal opinion. I don't feel I have > need or resources for a professional view myself. But I am being > made extremely wary of exposing myself to the possible legal > risks involved in *any* substantive business project involving > these software components. The way these licences seem to be That is exactly what I've been saying (look at my post with "luck" in the title). I _am_ glad that I just barely missed a situation where I've to explain all this to a certain customer, regardless of wether we can resolve that with a lawyers help to a point where we see that we still have rights to use GtkAda under GMGPL. It's the lawyer that will make the customer very skittish indeed. And there is my point that all this is damaging Ada beyond redemption. You can all deny that. You can all say that the hobbyist can still use that and that the commercial user can still license this or should be able to pay that. At the end of the day this are just all very convincing attempts to close the eyes to the inevitable: The situation as it is, generates uncertainty and doubt. Fear will follow and I predict the last commercial (and no, Government, NASA, ESA and defense industry DON'T count, this is all a very closed and special market of its own) -- I predict that after the water have reached a certain amount of muddiness, the commercial users will leave Ada as language or not adopt it, as will the hobbyist with a professional attitude (the boundaries aren't quite so clear indeed). > being revoked, changed or withdrawn, without adequate explanation > is certainly a breach of the implied social "contract" created > when software is published. Thanks. You expressed my opinion very clearly. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-28 0:42 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 19:24 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-28 23:00 ` M E Leypold 3 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-28 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable, > non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence. The GMGPL terms add to > this, but don't change these basic features. The GPL includes statements about transferability, the modifications don't (but there is nothing to say they _don't_ transfer, so one might expect the GPL provisions to apply). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 19:24 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-06-28 23:00 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > > > As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable, > > non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence. The GMGPL terms add to > > this, but don't change these basic features. > > The GPL includes statements about transferability, the modifications > don't (but there is nothing to say they _don't_ transfer, so one might > expect the GPL provisions to apply). Exactly. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 15:38 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-27 18:50 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 0:50 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:25 ` Michael Bode ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: >> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? > > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the > copyright holder has legal force. From a well know file named COPYING (note paragraph 2): How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> Copyright (C) 19yy <name of author> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 18:50 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 0:50 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > >> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? > > > > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the > > copyright holder has legal force. > > > From a well know file named COPYING (note paragraph 2): > > How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs > To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest > to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively > convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least > the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. Ah bah -- Michael, You know that the FSF doesn't have a clue? :-). Just joking -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-27 18:50 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:25 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 0:52 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Florian Weimer ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: >> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? > > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the > copyright holder has legal force. Oh, and BTW I suppose the following then also has no legal force: -- This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, -- -- but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of -- -- MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU -- -- General Public License for more details. -- (from gdk.ads) -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 19:25 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 0:52 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > >> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated? > > > > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the > > copyright holder has legal force. > > Oh, and BTW I suppose the following then also has no legal force: > > -- This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, -- > -- but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of -- > -- MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU -- > -- General Public License for more details. -- Ah yes, that has no legal force. Good idea. I'll sent ACT a bill for the time I spent debugging 3.15p. After all their exclusion of warranty had no legal force. What a absolutely /&$"/&�$!"/�$ <censored>. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-27 19:25 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-27 20:47 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 13:50 ` Preben Randhol 2006-06-28 19:22 ` Simon Wright 6 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-27 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) * Ludovic Brenta: > They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch > took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am > indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's > software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact > I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the > copyright holders. You didn't download from Adacore, I think, but from NYU. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-27 20:47 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 0:53 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > * Ludovic Brenta: > >> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch >> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am >> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's >> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact >> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the >> copyright holders. > > You didn't download from Adacore, I think, but from NYU. I did download quite a lot from AdaCore: GtkAda, AWS, XML/Ada, and also GPS but that's not a library. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:47 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 0:53 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > > > * Ludovic Brenta: > > > >> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch > >> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am > >> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's > >> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact > >> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the > >> copyright holders. > > > > You didn't download from Adacore, I think, but from NYU. > > I did download quite a lot from AdaCore: GtkAda, AWS, XML/Ada, and > also GPS but that's not a library. Ah, but did you download from libre or from libre2? :-) Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:47 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 0:53 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw) * Ludovic Brenta: > I did download quite a lot from AdaCore: GtkAda, AWS, XML/Ada [...] Ah, okay. The libraries are indeed problematic if you need the linking exception. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 13:50 ` Preben Randhol 2006-06-28 14:16 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 more replies) 2006-06-28 19:22 ` Simon Wright 6 siblings, 3 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2006-06-28 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote on 27/06/2006 (17:30) : > > 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked? > > Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic > instantiation" exception is revoked. Can you update the packafe descriptions of the ada packages saying something like: Please note: You will only be able to make pure GPL programs with this compiler/library. > They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch > took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am > indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's > software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact > I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the > copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal > perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me, > or anyone else, for that. IANAL. If you are worried by this I think we should revoke all gnat packages from Debian. > > 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)? > > Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and > certify, but not in writing :( How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate to licenses. Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 13:50 ` Preben Randhol @ 2006-06-28 14:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:54 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-29 6:12 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 15:50 +0200, Preben Randhol wrote: > How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was > GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. > > I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate > to licenses. Good Grief! First thing to do if you receive software and worry about its license is to find the license document. Then, if you need to be fairly certain that you can do what you think you can do is ask a lawyer. AdaCore has done so in the past, even informally here on c.l.ada. If you consider Python (no machine code, very little compile time checking) as a replacement for Ada, I wonder whether this is really about licensing. FUD at its best. I hereby declare that Microsoft has several patents pending on the execution of compiled python code within the .NET framework. As the .NET framework will sooner of later start emulating x86 machine code on virtual hardware, jointly developed with VMware, you can't trust the Python language any longer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 14:16 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:55 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > First thing to do if you receive software and worry about its > license is to find the license document. Then, if you need to > be fairly certain that you can do what you think you can do is > ask a lawyer. AdaCore has done so in the past, even informally > here on c.l.ada. This last sentence is a dangling thought. Please, for Sentence'Storage_Pool use null. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 19:55 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >> First thing to do if you receive software and worry about its >> license is to find the license document. Then, if you need to >> be fairly certain that you can do what you think you can do is >> ask a lawyer. AdaCore has done so in the past, even informally >> here on c.l.ada. > This last sentence is a dangling thought. Please, > for Sentence'Storage_Pool use null. I'd ask the author before asking a lawyer. Keep the lawyers at bay whenever you can :-) -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 13:50 ` Preben Randhol 2006-06-28 14:16 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 19:54 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-29 6:12 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes: > Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote on 27/06/2006 (17:30) : >> > 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked? >> >> Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic >> instantiation" exception is revoked. > > Can you update the packafe descriptions of the ada packages saying something > like: Please note: You will only be able to make pure GPL programs with > this compiler/library. I've started doing that with ASIS, which I am preparing for upload. I will continue to do that for the other packages as I update them. But the GMGPL remains in force for all packages that were previously GMGPL in Sarge. >> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch >> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am >> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's >> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact >> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the >> copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal >> perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me, >> or anyone else, for that. IANAL. > > If you are worried by this I think we should revoke all gnat packages > from Debian. I am not worried, and since the same reasoning applies to all software in Debian, then Debian and all software should disappear. I don't think that's realistic or true. >> > 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)? >> >> Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and >> certify, but not in writing :( > > How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was > GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. Ask the authors, if you trust the AUTHORS file :) > I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate > to licenses. That will not solve the problem. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 13:50 ` Preben Randhol 2006-06-28 14:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:54 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-29 6:12 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2006-06-29 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw) And this is really the core of the problem at the moment. Can you trust ACT? >>>>> "PR" == Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes: <snip> PR> How can we know that it is GPL? They "say" it is GPL now like it was PR> GMGPL before. Sorry, but I don't trust the ACT anymore. PR> I think I'll stick with Python or other languages where one can relate PR> to licenses. PR> Preben -- *NOT* speaking for my employer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-28 13:50 ` Preben Randhol @ 2006-06-28 19:22 ` Simon Wright 6 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-28 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the > copyright holder has legal force. I had an off-the-cuff opinion from a lawyer that to publish contradictory statements about copyright and licensing is at the least going to make any legal case more difficult. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-27 15:00 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2006-06-27 18:39 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 19:28 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 more replies) 2006-06-27 22:44 ` Simon Wright 2006-07-03 18:21 ` Matthew Goulet 5 siblings, 3 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > servers. In summary: > > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the > headers say. > > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in > source-only form. > > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so > I feel that I now need to go ask the authors. > > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them > (they are not required to sign anything, of course). How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? How is any Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file headers are invalid? How do *you* know? You have nothing written and signed and the authors deny any validity of anything written in the software itself. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 18:39 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:28 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 1:07 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 21:07 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 11:57 ` Florian Weimer 2 siblings, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-27 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > > servers. In summary: > How is any > Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file > headers are invalid? The file headers aren't invalid. That sounds like nitpicking, but "invalid" has different meaning. Anyway, all this is relevant only when someone uses software in a way that by applicable law is (a) illegal, and (b) this fact is made a legal issue. As long as Debian doesn't have any legal obligations, they can proactively try to reduce the risk of being associated with software that incurs a surprising legal status. I think that one way to do this is to collect all available evidence, and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it. Chances are that they represent the legal party that could make a claim. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 19:28 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 1:07 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > The file headers aren't invalid. That sounds like nitpicking, > but "invalid" has different meaning. Ok. ... if file headers are lying. > Anyway, all this is relevant only when someone uses software in a > way that by applicable law is (a) illegal, and (b) this fact is made > a legal issue. Debian is distributing the software. If at some later point in time it is claimed that the software today was not under GPL but some other license which forbids distribution they have a problem. Seems like this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. > As long as Debian doesn't have any legal obligations, they can > proactively try to reduce the risk of being associated with > software that incurs a surprising legal status. I think that > one way to do this is to collect all available evidence, > and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it. They only can collect bits which are not signed with strong crypto. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 20:23 ` Michael Bode ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-27 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 21:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > Debian is distributing the software. If at some later point in time it > is claimed that the software today was not under GPL but some other > license which forbids distribution they have a problem. Yes, they will have a problem if someone accuses them of distributing software they weren't allowed to distribute. But... > Seems like > this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. I'm not so sure. First, I don't think that the maintainers of Ada stuff in Debian will have a problem. By design, they never distribute anything without providing access to the source code as well. So GMGPL or GPL is not a legal issue at all from a Debian maintainer's perspective, as long as the issue is whether it is GPL or GMGPL. Now if you wanted to make a claim that in spite of messages from AdaCore officials to the contrary, software downloaded from the AdaCore site is neither GPLed nor GMGPLed, then I think everyone will be eager to hear what else it is. > > to collect all available evidence, > > and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it. > > They only can collect bits which are not signed with strong crypto. I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel. This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates, is GPLed. Would you believe it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-27 20:23 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:53 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 1:18 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 6:07 ` Michael Bode 2 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: >> Seems like >> this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. > > I'm not so sure. First, I don't think that the maintainers of Ada > stuff in Debian will have a problem. By design, they never distribute > anything without providing access to the source code as well. > So GMGPL or GPL is not a legal issue at all from a Debian maintainer's > perspective, as long as the issue is whether it is GPL or GMGPL. > > Now if you wanted to make a claim that in spite of messages from > AdaCore officials to the contrary, software downloaded from the > AdaCore site is neither GPLed nor GMGPLed, then I think everyone > will be eager to hear what else it is. I did not claim that Debian right now has a problem with GtkAda. I claim that a sudden, secret and maybe retroactive (or maybe it was between 2.4.0 and 2.4.1?, AdaCore won't tell us) change of license happend to GtkAda. And if that happens once ... Regarding messages from AdaCore to the contrary of anything: http://web.archive.org/web/20050224092046/http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/ -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:23 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 20:53 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 22:53 ` Björn Persson 2006-06-28 1:29 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-27 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 22:23 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > I > claim that a sudden, secret and maybe retroactive (or maybe it was > between 2.4.0 and 2.4.1?, AdaCore won't tell us) change of license > happend to GtkAda. And if that happens once ... > > Regarding messages from AdaCore to the contrary of anything: > > http://web.archive.org/web/20050224092046/http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/ > Ludovic lets us know a response from AdaCore that uses the _present_ tense, - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the headers say. I don't think that _if_ there was a legal status at a time in the recent past, this status can be declared something different. These things should happen only after one legal system has been dropped in favor of another, for example after a war. I am aware that many of the software packages used to be advertised as being GMGPL. With Debian in particular, I think there might be more issues, like you don't want to stress your good relations with AdaCore, if any, if you are maintaining Debian Ada software that nowadays is mostly produced by AdaCore. This, I guess, is just a business issue for some who are involved. In fact, we might be able to produce more GPLed software for profit in spite of all the rogues around. It's worth a try, anyway, and some report success. Yet, what about a collaborative effort to produce good general purpose Ada libraries to be used in Ada programs, irrespective of the compiler. Hm. A PAL with funding from everyone involved, including compiler makers and their customers. We've all got to make a living, haven't we? Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:53 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-27 22:53 ` Björn Persson 2006-06-28 5:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 1:29 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2006-06-27 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Yet, what about a collaborative effort to produce good general > purpose Ada libraries to be used in Ada programs, > irrespective of the compiler. Hm. A PAL with funding from everyone > involved, including compiler makers and their customers. If a project were to be started with the purpose of writing and maintaining GMGPL libraries, would you donate some of your time? -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 22:53 ` Björn Persson @ 2006-06-28 5:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 5:11 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 22:53 +0000, Björn Persson wrote: > If a project were to be started with the purpose of writing and > maintaining GMGPL libraries, would you donate some of your time? Certainly. In a few month from now I should find some time. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:53 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 22:53 ` Björn Persson @ 2006-06-28 1:29 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 22:23 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > > > I > > claim that a sudden, secret and maybe retroactive (or maybe it was > > between 2.4.0 and 2.4.1?, AdaCore won't tell us) change of license > > happend to GtkAda. And if that happens once ... > > > > Regarding messages from AdaCore to the contrary of anything: > > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20050224092046/http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/ > > > > Ludovic lets us know a response from AdaCore that uses the _present_ > tense, > > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the > headers say. > > I don't think that _if_ there was a legal status at a time in the > recent past, this status can be declared something different. Fine. Problem is the amnesia presently ravaging ACT headquarters. They don't remember the past or don't talk about it. It certainly would be going out on a limb if anyone distributes GtkAda 2.4.0 (from old libre) now as GMGPL which is exactly the same version as 2.4.0 deistributed from ACT today which is GPL and relies on his/her memory only regarding the license the thing had when it was downloaded. After all, the licensing statements in the tarball itself are far from clear (which started all that hullabaloo in the very beginning). > These things should happen only after one legal system has been > dropped in favor of another, for example after a war. I am aware > that many of the software packages used to be advertised as being > GMGPL. Well. Can I call you as witness? Will that suffice? -- You see my point. > With Debian in particular, I think there might be more issues, like > you don't want to stress your good relations with AdaCore, if any, That certainly seems to be on of the factors in a number of cases. > if you are maintaining Debian Ada software that nowadays is mostly > produced by AdaCore. > This, I guess, is just a business issue for some who are involved. Which perhaps should cut both ways. ACTs distributions never installed flawlessly in a give system, so they should be _very_ grateful for the work of debian maintainers which are doing a lot of free advertisment for ACT by providing well maintained no-hassle installations of ACTs public versions. > Yet, what about a collaborative effort to produce good general > purpose Ada libraries to be used in Ada programs, > irrespective of the compiler. Hm. A PAL with funding from everyone > involved, including compiler makers and their customers. > We've all got to make a living, haven't we? I would participate, but not if I can't sell a closed programm now and then (or at least assure the customer that I am allowed to sign away my rights to him). But I don't suppose you'd want GMGPL libraries, would you? Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 20:23 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 1:18 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 6:07 ` Michael Bode 2 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 21:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > > > Debian is distributing the software. If at some later point in time it > > is claimed that the software today was not under GPL but some other > > license which forbids distribution they have a problem. > > Yes, they will have a problem if someone accuses them of distributing > software they weren't allowed to distribute. But... > > > Seems like > > this has just happend with GtkAda and GMGPL. > > I'm not so sure. First, I don't think that the maintainers of Ada > stuff in Debian will have a problem. By design, they never distribute > anything without providing access to the source code as well. > So GMGPL or GPL is not a legal issue at all from a Debian maintainer's > perspective, as long as the issue is whether it is GPL or GMGPL. May I play the sweet melody of damages ACT might (in extremis) want from the Debian maintainers (not that I believe that, but you were the one starting to analyze the legal situation). Debian has distributed the packages in question under a license which is probably more liberal than ACT would have it to be. Other used them in good faith in proprietary software. Two parties now have problems: The ones whose software is now suddenly open and ACT whose software has been used "illegally". Don't fear: I don't have that situation, I'll not sue or whatever. But proposing that Debian could not have incurred some liability is a bit naive. So Debian is right to go the safe way, even if that just illustrates the power of FUD. > Now if you wanted to make a claim that in spite of messages from > AdaCore officials to the contrary, software downloaded from the > AdaCore site is neither GPLed nor GMGPLed, then I think everyone > will be eager to hear what else it is. In a year from now? Who knows. You see: Files in the ditro and file headers are not binding. E-Mails from ACT probably have a similar ephemeral status if not signed with strong crypto. So you'll never know what the future brings. > > > > to collect all available evidence, > > > and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it. > > > > They only can collect bits which are not signed with strong crypto.> > I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of > paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel. > This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates, > is GPLed. Would you believe it? No. On the other side I think, that MS would take action on that very soon, when it becomes public, whereas the GtkAda source has been in public with ACTs knowledge for quite a time. They know what the headers say since version 1.3.x and I find it not creditable that they never wondered about their meaning, sort of. Implied consent? Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 20:23 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 1:18 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 6:07 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota 2 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 6:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of > paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel. > This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates, > is GPLed. Would you believe it? If I had downloaded it myself from https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ? -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 6:07 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-28 18:17 ` Ed Falis ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Frank J. Lhota @ 2006-06-28 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrote: > Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > >> I see the irony, but this is legal stuff. Consider a few sheets of >> paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel. >> This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates, >> is GPLed. Would you believe it? > > If I had downloaded it myself from > https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ? Folks, Georg was only kidding. We will have to wait a *long* time to see "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL. AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any OS except the DOS 1.x BIOS. Two years ago, there was a panic over the leaking of the source code for Windows NT / 2000; see http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=17509 This immediately raised the concern that hackers could use this source code to pinpoint vulnerabilities. So much for the concept of security through obscurity! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota @ 2006-06-28 18:17 ` Ed Falis 2006-06-28 18:55 ` Florian Weimer ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2006-06-28 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Frank J. Lhota wrote: > AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any OS > except the DOS 1.x BIOS. My brother works for MS. I'm pretty sure he told me late last year that MS does make the source code available for a price as part of their shared source initiative. - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-28 18:17 ` Ed Falis @ 2006-06-28 18:55 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-30 19:55 ` Preben Randhol 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) * Frank J. Lhota: > AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any OS > except the DOS 1.x BIOS. Most Microsoft software is available in source code form. And they adhere to the GPL if necessary. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 18:55 ` Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-30 19:55 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2006-06-30 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:55:52 +0200 Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * Frank J. Lhota: > > > AFAIK Microsoft has not officially released the source code for any > > OS except the DOS 1.x BIOS. > > Most Microsoft software is available in source code form. And they > adhere to the GPL if necessary. Where? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-28 18:17 ` Ed Falis 2006-06-28 18:55 ` Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:28 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-28 19:17 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 20:48 ` Florian Weimer 4 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Frank J. Lhota wrote: > Michael Bode wrote: >> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: >>> Consider a few sheets of >>> paper landing on your desk saying, this is a part of the NT kernel. >>> This part of the NT kernel source, as the header clearly indicates, >>> is GPLed. Would you believe it? >> >> If I had downloaded it myself from >> https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ? > > Folks, Georg was only kidding. Well, not really. > We will have to wait a *long* time to see > "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL. Though, http://www.microsoft.com/spain/sharedsource/Articles/GNU.mspx From the XEN laboratory at U of Cambridge: "A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen, but is not available for release due to licence restrictions." Seems to me a word with those whose software you are using is always a way. I'd prefer this to arguing about license headers, and I guess that most compiler shops will prefer a simple, quiet, reasonable deal, too. Wouldn't they know what software production is about? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 19:28 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-28 19:38 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Frank J. Lhota @ 2006-06-28 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: >> Folks, Georg was only kidding. > > Well, not really. The URL https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src does not currently appear to be up. I just assumed it was a joke. If it wasn't, I humbly apologize. Out of curiosity, if this was a real site, what source files did it offer? >> We will have to wait a *long* time to see "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the >> same URL. > > Though, > http://www.microsoft.com/spain/sharedsource/Articles/GNU.mspx > > From the XEN laboratory at U of Cambridge: > "A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen, > but is not available for release due to licence restrictions." > > Seems to me a word with those whose software you are using is > always a way. I'd prefer this to arguing about license headers, > and I guess that most compiler shops will prefer a simple, quiet, > reasonable deal, too. > Wouldn't they know what software production is about? One would hope! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 19:28 ` Frank J. Lhota @ 2006-06-28 19:38 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw) "Frank J. Lhota" <flhota.NOSPAM@ll.mit.edu> writes: > The URL https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src does > not currently appear to be up. I just assumed it was a joke. Yes, that was a joke. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-28 19:17 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 20:48 ` Florian Weimer 4 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) "Frank J. Lhota" <flhota.NOSPAM@ll.mit.edu> writes: >> If I had downloaded it myself from >> https://gnu.microsoft.com/free_software/windows_nt/src/ ? > > > Folks, Georg was only kidding. We will have to wait a *long* time to > see "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL. Yeah, that would be surprising. The point was this: if I take someone elses closed source software and stick a COPYING to it, then of course this cannot result in the software suddenly becoming GPL. But if the author of said software sprinkles it all over the place with licensing declarations (about 200 *.ads files in GtkAda contain the GMGPL header) then I would believe that this means what it says. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-28 19:17 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 20:48 ` Florian Weimer 4 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) * Frank J. Lhota: > Folks, Georg was only kidding. We will have to wait a *long* time to > see "gnu" and "Microsoft" in the same URL. *yawn* <ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/sfu35/sources/Interix/gnu/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 19:28 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 1:07 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Bode wrote: > > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > > > > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > > > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > > > servers. In summary: > > > How is any > > Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file > > headers are invalid? > > The file headers aren't invalid. That sounds like nitpicking, > but "invalid" has different meaning. Like? > only when someone uses software in a way that by applicable > law is (a) illegal, and (b) this fact is made a legal issue. Sorry. That is, in example, quite relevant, if, in example, someone just picks the files with linking exception from the package and creates a GMGPL binding from that. Which he/she should be allowed to do, if the headers have any meaning. > As long as Debian doesn't have any legal obligations, they can > proactively try to reduce the risk of being associated with software > that incurs a surprising legal status. Man, man. The "surprising legal status" is something that should never have happened. And forgive me: It's not Debian which is at fault here. > I think that one way to do this is to collect all available > evidence, and take Dewar's and Charlet's word for it. For what? They are not actually giving any useful words, AFAIS. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 18:39 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 19:28 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-27 21:07 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 21:19 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 1:35 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 11:57 ` Florian Weimer 2 siblings, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? How is any > Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file > headers are invalid? How do *you* know? You have nothing written and > signed and the authors deny any validity of anything written in the > software itself. This is becoming metaphysical. Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your argument applies to all software that is not at least cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed license statement :) (note: software distributed by Debian _is_ cryptographically signed, but that from upstream is not. AdaCore make no claim as to the license terms for software I download from other sites than AdaCore. And I don't think they can retroactively revoke the licenses that Debian received when I initially downloaded the software from NYU, AdaCore, or other places. But IANAL. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 21:07 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 21:19 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 1:40 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 1:35 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > This is becoming metaphysical. Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your > argument applies to all software that is not at least > cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed > license statement :) It applies only to software from authors who don't accept the section 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' from the file COPYING. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 21:19 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 1:40 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > > This is becoming metaphysical. Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your > > argument applies to all software that is not at least > > cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed > > license statement :) > > It applies only to software from authors who don't accept the section > 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' from the file COPYING. If I think about that, that would make the situation clear. The COPYING file says that the copyright is in the headers, so the headers are binding. These have a linking exception, so the single files are under GMGPL. Just delete any non-GMGPL stuff from GtkAda that would get linked to your executable and then you have GMGPL-GtkAda [1]. Hm. I think we'll just have to ask a lawyer about that. Michael, mail me privately on that. I got me an idea :-). Regards -- Markus PS: [1] I'm not alawyer. Don't construe that legal advice. It isn't. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 21:07 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 21:19 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 1:35 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > > How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? How is any > > Debian user supposed to know any AdaCore software is GPL if file > > headers are invalid? How do *you* know? You have nothing written and > > signed and the authors deny any validity of anything written in the > > software itself. > > This is becoming metaphysical. Cogito, ergo sum, and all that :) Your > argument applies to all software that is not at least > cryptographically signed by their author, and accompanied by a signed > license statement :) (note: software distributed by Debian _is_ > cryptographically signed, but that from upstream is not. > > AdaCore make no claim as to the license terms for software I download > from other sites than AdaCore. And I don't think they can Which leaves ypu with the fact that you don't know anything about that, since the licensing terms in the GtkAda source tarball are far from clearly stated. > retroactively revoke the licenses that Debian received when I > initially downloaded the software from NYU, AdaCore, or other places. One would think. I think Michael has just overstating the problem behind all that, but you see it too, don't you? I'd go as far as saying, that ACT did purposefully muddy the water, since it is hardly believable, that they don't know what and how they distributed from libre.act-europe.fr. A statement of "it now like this, everthing up to version x has been GMPL and/or everything you got from libre.act-europe.fr or before $DATE is GMGPL" would not have cost them much. But they didn't. > But IANAL. IANAL2. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 18:39 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 19:28 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 21:07 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 11:57 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-28 18:45 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 19:51 ` Ludovic Brenta 2 siblings, 2 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw) * Michael Bode: > How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages. I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got statements in writing to the contrary). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 11:57 ` Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 18:45 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 19:51 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: >> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? > > Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages. > I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper > compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions > from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got > statements in writing to the contrary). That I can understand. However I think most (L/GM/)GPL software authors respect all parts of COPYING and thus respect the file headers they had applied in accordance with COPYING. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 11:57 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-28 18:45 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 19:51 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 20:46 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > * Michael Bode: > >> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? > > Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages. Oh yes, per Policy. > I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper > compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions > from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got > statements in writing to the contrary). So far, Debian has provided a some form of assurances by means of the copyright file shipped with every package, and cryptographically signed by the package maintainer (i.e. myself in the case of Ada packages). -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 19:51 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 20:46 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-28 23:06 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) * Ludovic Brenta: > Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > >> * Michael Bode: >> >>> How can any AdaCore software then remain in Debian at all? >> >> Debian does not check the precise copyright status of most packages. > > Oh yes, per Policy. It checks if the *license* meets certain criteria. But anybody can take someone else's code, pretend it's their own, slap a new license on it, and put it on the Net for download. The result is typically a copyright infringement. The purported license statement doesn't tell you this, of course. >> I doubt many authors are willing to provide assurances without proper >> compensation, especially if they have incorporated any contributions >> from third parties (which can pose legal risks even if you've got >> statements in writing to the contrary). > > So far, Debian has provided a some form of assurances by means of the > copyright file shipped with every package, The copyright file is just what upstream provided. If it's wrong, Debian will make the same false claims. In some cases, packages contain contradicting license claims, which are discovered after some time (see #328923 for an example). But if no such claims exist, it's unlikely that we'd spot a copyright violation. > and cryptographically signed by the package maintainer (i.e. myself > in the case of Ada packages). In a couple of weeks, indeed. 8-) But in reality, Debian provides few developer-to-user guarantees. The .changes files are awfully hard to get, and I'm not sure if those for binary-only NMUs are archived at all. But this is completely off-topic here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-28 20:46 ` Florian Weimer @ 2006-06-28 23:06 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > > So far, Debian has provided a some form of assurances by means of the > > copyright file shipped with every package, > > The copyright file is just what upstream provided. If it's wrong, > Debian will make the same false claims. But if upstream is the copyright holder one would expect it to be legally binding noneless. You cannot (bad analogy) sign a contract with you bank and after some time decide, that the sugnature has been "wrong". The same applies to adding copyright statements to your product: It is a declaration of intent and as such should have legally binding force. Just your tough look if you weren't awake enough when you did that. So as a first approximation I'd say: Declaration of intent -> legally binding. Proofability is another matter altogether, but there is often a number of witnesse which could state that the downloaded the very same file with exctly these copyright notices. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-27 18:39 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 22:44 ` Simon Wright 2006-07-03 18:21 ` Matthew Goulet 5 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-27 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > - TASH, the Tcl Ada SHell [6], includes a binding to Tk; it is > available as a Debian package, under GMGPL, from Ada-France [7] and > AdaWorld [8]. TASH is portable, but has not been updated since > 2003. TASH is in the process of moving to SourceForge at http://tcladashell.sourceforge.net/ I welcome anyone who wants to join in! My interest is in extending Tcl/Tk with commands written in Ada so as to eg have a Tk gui to an Ada application, rather than using Tcl features in Ada applications, so there's a gap there ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2006-06-27 22:44 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-07-03 18:21 ` Matthew Goulet 2006-07-04 7:21 ` Ludovic Brenta 5 siblings, 1 reply; 76+ messages in thread From: Matthew Goulet @ 2006-07-03 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their > servers. In summary: > > ... > > - AdaBindX [3], a binding to X11 and LessTif by Hans-Frieder Vogt > which is under GMGPL. X11 is under X11 (MIT) license, and > LessTif[4] is under LGPL. But AdaBindX has not been updated since > 2000, and is not portable. And not as good-looking as GTK+. > According to Debian's Popularity Contest [5], this package has zero > users, so I am tempted to drop it from Etch. Speak up if you want > me to keep it. > > ... > > Thoughts, comments, offers to help? > > -- > Ludovic Brenta. Hello there, Long time listener, first time caller, so to speak. Just wanted to say I've found this whole thread quite interesting and intructive, even though the subject itself still contains so much doubt. Also I wanted to say to Ludovic specifically, I'm actually someone who's using the AdabindX libraries. Perhaps I'm the only one :-) As for popularity contest, I use noatime, so it doesn't work for me. Regardless, one person isn't enough reason to keep a package, but I nevertheless wanted to say thanks for all the work on GNAT for Debian. I hope to be able to post meaningfully here in the future, its nice to read postings with intellect, especially about my favorite language :-) -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch 2006-07-03 18:21 ` Matthew Goulet @ 2006-07-04 7:21 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 76+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-07-04 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Thanks, Matt. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 76+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-04 7:21 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 76+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <mailman.122.1151442302.13640.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org> 2006-06-28 13:55 ` Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch Carroll, Andrew 2006-06-28 19:57 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 23:12 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 10:58 Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 13:46 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2006-06-27 14:40 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 18:57 ` Ed Falis 2006-06-28 0:58 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:45 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 21:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 1:02 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 15:00 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-27 15:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 15:38 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 16:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-27 17:45 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-06-27 21:18 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 0:45 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 0:48 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 10:51 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2006-06-28 11:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 11:21 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 12:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 13:36 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 13:31 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 0:42 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:24 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-28 23:00 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 18:50 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 0:50 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:25 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 0:52 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-27 20:47 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 0:53 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-28 13:50 ` Preben Randhol 2006-06-28 14:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:55 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 19:54 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-29 6:12 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2006-06-28 19:22 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-27 18:39 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 19:28 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 19:39 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 20:23 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:53 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-27 22:53 ` Björn Persson 2006-06-28 5:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 1:29 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 1:18 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 6:07 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 17:58 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-28 18:17 ` Ed Falis 2006-06-28 18:55 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-30 19:55 ` Preben Randhol 2006-06-28 18:57 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-28 19:28 ` Frank J. Lhota 2006-06-28 19:38 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 19:17 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 20:48 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-28 1:07 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 21:07 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 21:19 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 1:40 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 1:35 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 11:57 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-28 18:45 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 19:51 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 20:46 ` Florian Weimer 2006-06-28 23:06 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 22:44 ` Simon Wright 2006-07-03 18:21 ` Matthew Goulet 2006-07-04 7:21 ` Ludovic Brenta
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox