From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151434144.2179.36.camel@localhost> <1151965334.709372.227600@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <3Ryqg.368$Rk2.140@trndny04> From: M E Leypold Date: 05 Jul 2006 00:34:49 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.240.102 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1152052089 88.72.240.102 (5 Jul 2006 00:28:09 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5524 Date: 2006-07-05T00:34:49+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > Hyman Rosen 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