Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> 
> > As you can see, the only way you are allowed to distribute this file
> > is under the GPL, and the GPL does not contain the special
> > exemption.  So you are not allowed to distribute this file to other
> > people with the exemption in place. The people who distributed it to
> > you must then have been the original copyright holders, who were
> > able to choose any additional terms they wished.
> 

> It's Florist as a whole that is GPL'd. Part of Florist is 'this file'

Florist 3.15p seems to be GPL+Exception = GMGPL. The README actually
quotes the exemption clause. But the clause itself only makes sense
for Ada compilation units, so in a sense, the other files are GPL. I
don't think there is any doubt how the exemption clause has to be
applied (even if there would be no extra header in single source
files).

FYI: In the current ACT florist the exemption clause has been stripped
also from the source files. 

> which (as distributed) contained the exception. So the whole position
> seems somewhat murky.

I would think that the intent is quite clear. Admittedly in retrospect
the GMGPL could have been designed better (by modifying the GPL text
directly), but I wonder why the problem crops up now, after more than
10 years ...


> If Florist contains (as some of my code does) a file that is public
> domain would it be forbidden to distribute it without _adding_ the
> GPL?  I think not ..

Nor do I.

> None of us is a lawyer, of course, but I'm beginning to think that the
> standard COPYING file is not enough, the licensing terms for a
> mixed-license project ought to be spelt out in much more detail.

The FOX library added a special text about how the LGPL should be
interpreted in the context of FOX. I find the exemplary. "More
details" are usually found in the README (here in many projects we
find texts saying that some files are under a different license, see
file headers) and the file headers. 

Usually all this is not a problem, if a thinking person has written
the README.

The current murkiness surrounding the ACT maintained libraries stem
mostly from bad documentation practice: No summary of licensing terms
in the README, sometimes stripped, sometimes non stripped file headers
and the stout maintainance that everything is pure GPL _regardless_
what the file headers say.

The last is either total cheekiness, somebody messed up big or just
bad will.

But generally, apart from ACTs fault, READMEs, COPYING or LICENSE
files and file headers are plenty for establishing a clear licensing
situation, if written well.

Perhaps we should now write to the FSF and ask for advice what the
GMGPL mean. I bet they don't say that it means, we cannot redistribute
GMGPLed files :-).

Regards -- Markus