Ada and licensing

Ada and licensing

[Tomek Wałkuski]

Hi,

I'm not a language lawyer and I have heard many answers to my
questions:

1. Can I use AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler to produce propertiary
software?
2. If not, GCC version is provided with something like "GNAT modified
provision". Huh? So maybe I can use this one!
3. GTK+ is licensed as LGPL, Ada bindings are licensed as GPL. So I
can't use GtkAda in propertiary software?

Thanks in advance.

Tomek

Re: Ada and licensing

[Ludovic Brenta]

On Sep 17, 9:33 am, Tomek Wa kuski <tomek.walku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not a language lawyer and I have heard many answers to my
> questions:
>
> 1. Can I use AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler to produce propertiary
> software?

Yes, provided you do not distribute your software to anyone. This
means you can either write proprietary software for your own use only,
or provide software as a service (i.e. a web application).

> 2. If not, GCC version is provided with something like "GNAT modified
> provision". Huh? So maybe I can use this one!

Yes, that is correct.

> 3. GTK+ is licensed as LGPL, Ada bindings are licensed as GPL. So I
> can't use GtkAda in propertiary software?

Correct, see 1.

If you would like to write and distribute proprietary software using
GtkAda, you must purchase GNAT Pro.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada and licensing

[Tomek Wa kuski]

On 17 Wrz, 10:04, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> Yes, provided you do not distribute your software to anyone. This
> means you can either write proprietary software for your own use only,
> or provide software as a service (i.e. a web application).
>
So, this same applies to GCC C compiler? (it is also on GPL without
any provision).


> If you would like to write and distribute proprietary software using
> GtkAda, you must purchase GNAT Pro.
>
Or prepare own bindings! :)

Tomek

Re: Ada and licensing

[Stephen Leake]

Tomek Wałkuski <tomek.walkuski@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm not a language lawyer and I have heard many answers to my
> questions:

By posting here, you will hear many more.

If you need an authoritative answer for a business, you need to spend
money and ask a lawyer.

> 1. Can I use AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler to produce propertiary
> software?

I think you mean "proprietary"; you own the software, and don't want
to give away the source.

The short answer is "no"; GPL prevents that.

> 2. If not, GCC version is provided with something like "GNAT modified
> provision". Huh? So maybe I can use this one!

Yes, the GNAT Modified GPL (GMGPL) is designed to allow people to
write code using Ada, and not be forced to give away the source.

> 3. GTK+ is licensed as LGPL, Ada bindings are licensed as GPL. So I
> can't use GtkAda in propertiary software?

If you are correct about the license on GtkAda (I have not checked),
and my understanding of what you mean by "propertiary" is correct,
your conclusion is correct.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada and licensing

[Tomek Wa kuski]

Wikipedia says:

""Any software created with GPL tools must be released under the GPL."
    The program must be GPL only if it includes GPL source code or it
is linked with a GPL library. For example, using gcc to compile
proprietary software is allowed."

Wikipedia made a mistake? GCC is licensed as GPL, GNAT is also GPL -
so where is the difference?

Re: Ada and licensing

[anon]

For the absolute, answer email Adacore and ask them.

Eveybody has an answer but the one that should know is Adacore! The 
maintainers of GNAT. Of course they might try to sale you a GNAT Pro
but that the breaks!

In <1190014387.975202.55530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,  =?iso-8859-2?q?Tomek_Wa=B3kuski?= <tomek.walkuski@gmail.com> writes:
>Hi,
>
>I'm not a language lawyer and I have heard many answers to my
>questions:
>
>1. Can I use AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler to produce propertiary
>software?
>2. If not, GCC version is provided with something like "GNAT modified
>provision". Huh? So maybe I can use this one!
>3. GTK+ is licensed as LGPL, Ada bindings are licensed as GPL. So I
>can't use GtkAda in propertiary software?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Tomek
>

Re: Ada and licensing

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:37:18 -0000, Tomek Wa kuski wrote:

> Wikipedia says:
> 
> ""Any software created with GPL tools must be released under the GPL."
>     The program must be GPL only if it includes GPL source code or it
> is linked with a GPL library. For example, using gcc to compile
> proprietary software is allowed."
> 
> Wikipedia made a mistake? GCC is licensed as GPL, GNAT is also GPL -
> so where is the difference?

My guess is - you link to the Ada RTL.

(I don't know how "to link" is defined in the legal system. It looks quite
swampy, I mean technically, to distinguish linking and translation. But
what ever, law has nothing to do with reason anyway. (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada and licensing

[Ludovic Brenta]

On Sep 17, 10:07 am, Tomek Wa kuski <tomek.walku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Wrz, 10:04, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:> Yes, provided you do not distribute your software to anyone. This
> > means you can either write proprietary software for your own use only,
> > or provide software as a service (i.e. a web application).
>
> So, this same applies to GCC C compiler? (it is also on GPL without
> any provision).

See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing#GNAT.2C_the_GNU_Ada_Compiler_from_AdaCore_and_the_Free_Software_Foundation

The gist of it is: it is the run-time library, not the compiler, that
has an effect on your program.

> > If you would like to write and distribute proprietary software using
> > GtkAda, you must purchase GNAT Pro.
>
> Or prepare own bindings! :)

Yes indeed.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada and licensing

[Martin Krischik]

Tomek Wa�kuski schrieb:

> 1. Can I use AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler to produce propertiary
> software?

Only if you use "pragma No_Runtime;" but that would be very painfull indeed.

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Ada and licensing

[Martin Krischik]

Tomek Wa kuski schrieb:
> Wikipedia says:
> 
> ""Any software created with GPL tools must be released under the GPL."
>     The program must be GPL only if it includes GPL source code or it
> is linked with a GPL library. For example, using gcc to compile
> proprietary software is allowed."
> 
> Wikipedia made a mistake? GCC is licensed as GPL, GNAT is also GPL -
> so where is the difference?

The difference is that glibc is a sepearate product and libgnat comes
with the compiler.

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Ada and licensing

[Tomek Wa kuski]

On 17 Wrz, 13:15, Martin Krischik <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> The difference is that glibc is a sepearate product and libgnat comes
> with the compiler.
>
This makes everything clear. glibc is LGPL software.

Tomek

Re: Ada and licensing

[Maciej Sobczak]

On 17 Wrz, 09:33, Tomek Wa kuski <tomek.walku...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. Can I use AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler to produce propertiary
> software?

This is a good question and I will add some more twist to it.

GPL really affects the result of the combination of your software with
something that is already GPL. For example, if you use a GPL library
(like Ada RTL), your code has to be GPL.

But as many on this groups often stress, Ada is portable. That means,
it is not inherently coupled to anybody's runtime library.
If you write your program according to the standard (no GNAT
extensions used, etc.), then it is decoupled from any RTL. You can
*sell* the source code with some non-disclosure agreement and let
people compile it on their own. How they compile it and what they link
with is their business. You just sell the source code. Actually, you
don't even need yourself any Ada compiler to do that (a text editor
should be enough), although you might want to use some Ada compiler
just to check whether your source code is correct. But the bare fact
that you have *checked* your source code before selling it should not
have any impact on how you license it. You can sell/distribute/give
away/etc. the source code under *any* license you wish. It does not
have to be GPL.

Practical example: authors of Ada books distribute the source code for
their examples (most often in printed form, just inside the book, in
between the prose). Their programs don't have to be under GPL, no
matter what compiler they used for checking it before submitting the
book for printing.

Another example: code examples that you can find on this group are not
bound by GPL, even if their authors used GNAT GPL to *check* them
before posting.

In short: if you decide to distribute your software in the source
form, then you are not bound by any licenses. You can invent your own.

Note: distributing software in source form does *not* mean that it is
not proprietary.

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/

Re: Ada and licensing

[Tomek Wa kuski]

Yes, but if we mean propertiary as "closed source", we can't use
AdaCore GPL compiler and GtkAda bindings.

It was only theoretical question, because I'm not interested in
developing such software.

Tomek

Re: Ada and licensing

[anon]

This pragma may give you some idea how Adacore and GNAT deals with 
this issue.

 pragma License ( Restricted ) ;

But if you link your code with "glibc" or the standard GPL "libgnat". it 
must not be licensed with the option of "Restricted". You must build 
your own "libgnat" version.

Also Note: There is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux, 
            starting in Jan 2008. Not sure how Adacore or GNAT will 
            handle this.


Source: Extracted from the GNAT RM version 4.1.0, page 26-27

 Pragma License
 Syntax:  pragma License ( Unrestricted | GPL | Modified_GPL | Restricted );

 This pragma is provided to allow automated checking for appropriate 
 license conditions with respect to the standard and modified GPL. A 
 pragma License, which is a configuration pragma that typically appears 
 at the start of a source file or in a separate  gnat.adc  file, 
 specifies the licensing conditions of a unit as follows:

 "Unrestricted"  => This is used for a unit that can be freely used 
                    with no license restrictions.

 "GPL"           => This is used for a unit that is licensed under 
                    the unmodified GPL, and which therefore cannot 
                    be with ed by a restricted unit.

 "Modified GPL"  => This is used for a unit licensed under the GNAT 
                    modified GPL that includes a special exception 
                    paragraph that specifically permits the inclusion 
                    of the unit in programs without requiring the 
                    entire program to be released under the GPL.


 "Restricted"    => This is used for a unit that is restricted in that 
                    it is not permitted to depend on units that are 
                    licensed under the GPL. Typical examples are 
                    proprietary code that is to be released under 
                    more restrictive license conditions. Note that 
                    restricted units are permitted to with units which 
                    are licensed under the modified GPL (this is the
                    whole point of the modified GPL).



In <1190028836.075969.233300@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,  Tomek Wa kuski <tomek.walkuski@gmail.com> writes:
>On 17 Wrz, 13:15, Martin Krischik <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
>wrote:
>> The difference is that glibc is a sepearate product and libgnat comes
>> with the compiler.
>>
>This makes everything clear. glibc is LGPL software.
>
>Tomek
>

Re: Ada and licensing

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:32:03 -0700, Maciej Sobczak wrote:

[...]
> In short: if you decide to distribute your software in the source
> form, then you are not bound by any licenses. You can invent your own.
> 
> Note: distributing software in source form does *not* mean that it is
> not proprietary.

And how does this *technically* differ from distributing software as
executable "source" code with unresolved references (strings in the source)
to the RTL? As long as you don't distribute the RTL and the loader...

Hex code ~ Ada source
RTL + loader ~ Ada compiler

The bottom line is, it is worth to ask your lawyer first.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada and licensing

[Dirk Heinrichs]

anon wrote:

> Also Note: There is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux,
> starting in Jan 2008. Not sure how Adacore or GNAT will
> handle this.

I guess this would only be relevant if you develop Linux kernel modules with
GNAT. It doesn't affect userland applications in any way.

Bye...

        Dirk

Re: Ada and licensing

[Dirk Heinrichs]

Dirk Heinrichs wrote:

> anon wrote:
> 
>> Also Note: There is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux,
>> starting in Jan 2008. Not sure how Adacore or GNAT will
>> handle this.
> 
> I guess this would only be relevant if you develop Linux kernel modules
> with GNAT. It doesn't affect userland applications in any way.

Hmm, and if I think about it a little longer it wouldn't even be relevant if
you want to develop kernel modules, since you wouldn't link with the GNAT
runtime in this case.

Bye...

        Dirk

Re: Ada and licensing

[Markus E L]

Dirk Heinrichs wrote:

> Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>
>> anon wrote:
>> 
>>> Also Note: There is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux,
>>> starting in Jan 2008. Not sure how Adacore or GNAT will
>>> handle this.
>> 
>> I guess this would only be relevant if you develop Linux kernel modules
>> with GNAT. It doesn't affect userland applications in any way.
>
> Hmm, and if I think about it a little longer it wouldn't even be relevant if
> you want to develop kernel modules, since you wouldn't link with the GNAT
> runtime in this case.

And even if you did, linking modules with GPL source is OK if the must
be in GPL anyway.

A warning is in order here: Anon has a really skewed realitionship to
the GPL, so w/o checking I wouldn't even trust statements like "There
is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux". Frictions
between the kernel license and "closed" modules have existed for a
long time and the GPL-only philosophy endorsed by Linux Torvalds and
others has been circumvented by external loaders for binary modules
etc. I wonder to which event in 2008 anon is alluding (is there really
a new development?). Anyway, the chances are high that anon didn't get
it right anyway if it concerns the GPL, see his postings on GPL in
c.l.a. some time ago and certain postings in web forums which make
even more ludicrous statements about GPL, copyright law and the
relationship between them.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada and licensing

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Tomek Wa kuski wrote:

> Yes, but if we mean propertiary as "closed source", we can't use
> AdaCore GPL compiler and GtkAda bindings.

You can, as long as you don't distribute. GPL builds on copyright law, and
without distribution ("conveying I think is v3 term?"), it doesn't apply.

> 
> It was only theoretical question, because I'm not interested in
> developing such software.
> 
> Tomek

Re: Ada and licensing

[Wiktor Moskwa]

On 17.09.2007, Alex R. Mosteo <devnull@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Tomek Wa kuski wrote:
>
>> Yes, but if we mean propertiary as "closed source", we can't use
>> AdaCore GPL compiler and GtkAda bindings.
>
> You can, as long as you don't distribute. GPL builds on copyright law, and
> without distribution ("conveying I think is v3 term?"), it doesn't apply.
>

Two questions about distribution:
1. Is using GPL compiler for internal project considered a distribution?
2. What about deployment on internal servers when GNAT GPL is used 
   for building software for Application Service Providing
   (front-end is web application for example).

-- 
Wiktor Moskwa

Re: Ada and licensing

[Ludovic Brenta]

Wiktor Moskwa <wiktorDOTmoskwa@gmail.com> writes:

> On 17.09.2007, Alex R. Mosteo <devnull@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Tomek Wa kuski wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but if we mean propertiary as "closed source", we can't use
>>> AdaCore GPL compiler and GtkAda bindings.
>>
>> You can, as long as you don't distribute. GPL builds on copyright law, and
>> without distribution ("conveying I think is v3 term?"), it doesn't apply.
>>
>
> Two questions about distribution:
> 1. Is using GPL compiler for internal project considered a distribution?

No.

> 2. What about deployment on internal servers when GNAT GPL is used 
>    for building software for Application Service Providing
>    (front-end is web application for example).

This is not distribution either.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada and licensing

[anon]

Problem is that there are a few, close source Linux's device drivers that 
people can download and use for their cameras/video device drivers that 
are written in Ada. So unless that code become GPL and open source the 
decive will not work as of Jan 2008.

Also, some applications do require special modules or direcet links into 
a module.  And that the problem.

Plus at the movement in GNAT Ada83..2005 the "pragma License" is
non-functional other than the GNAT compiler warning. The compiler does 
not insert the correct information that the GNU/GCC will require for 
that feature in Jan, 2008. So, if your using GNAT or any other Ada that 
does not support the GPL license requirement by Jan, 2008, Linux 
might not load module.


In <fcmb2q$jnr$1@online.de>, Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@online.de> writes:
>anon wrote:
>
>> Also Note: There is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux,
>> starting in Jan 2008. Not sure how Adacore or GNAT will
>> handle this.
>
>I guess this would only be relevant if you develop Linux kernel modules with
>GNAT. It doesn't affect userland applications in any way.
>
>Bye...
>
>        Dirk

Re: Ada and licensing

[Wiktor Moskwa]

On 17.09.2007, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> Wiktor Moskwa <wiktorDOTmoskwa@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Two questions about distribution:
>> 1. Is using GPL compiler for internal project considered a distribution?
>
> No.
>
>> 2. What about deployment on internal servers when GNAT GPL is used 
>>    for building software for Application Service Providing
>>    (front-end is web application for example).
>
> This is not distribution either.
>

Thanks for clarifying.

-- 
Wiktor Moskwa

Re: Ada and licensing

[Dirk Heinrichs]

anon wrote:

> Problem is that there are a few, close source Linux's device drivers that
> people can download and use for their cameras/video device drivers that
> are written in Ada. So unless that code become GPL and open source the
> decive will not work as of Jan 2008.

They could have been written in perl. The language used is completely
irrelevant for this thread. If they are not GPL, they will not work
anymore, no matter what language was used.

> Also, some applications do require special modules or direcet links into
> a module.  And that the problem.

... of poor design.

> Plus at the movement in GNAT Ada83..2005 the "pragma License" is
> non-functional other than the GNAT compiler warning. The compiler does
> not insert the correct information that the GNU/GCC will require for
> that feature in Jan, 2008. So, if your using GNAT or any other Ada that
> does not support the GPL license requirement by Jan, 2008, Linux
> might not load module.

That's indeed a problem that should be fixed asap.

Bye...

        Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

Re: Ada and licensing

[Dirk Heinrichs]

Dirk Heinrichs wrote:

>> A warning is in order here: Anon has a really skewed realitionship to
>> the GPL, so w/o checking I wouldn't even trust statements like "There
>> is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux". Frictions
>> between the kernel license and "closed" modules have existed for a
>> long time and the GPL-only philosophy endorsed by Linux Torvalds and
>> others has been circumvented by external loaders for binary modules
>> etc. I wonder to which event in 2008 anon is alluding (is there really
>> a new development?).
> 
> I'm not sure about this either, but Greg K-H is pushing this since a long
> time, maybe he just succeeded.

A short search revealed that Linus has refused to let it happen:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475824

So no, there won't be any problem for proprietary kernel modules in 2008.

Bye...

        Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

Re: Ada and licensing

[Markus E L]

Dirk Heinrichs wrote:

> anon wrote:
>
>> Problem is that there are a few, close source Linux's device drivers that
>> people can download and use for their cameras/video device drivers that
>> are written in Ada. So unless that code become GPL and open source the
>> decive will not work as of Jan 2008.
>
> They could have been written in perl. The language used is completely
> irrelevant for this thread. If they are not GPL, they will not work
> anymore, no matter what language was used.
>
>> Also, some applications do require special modules or direcet links into
>> a module.  And that the problem.
>
> ... of poor design.
>
>> Plus at the movement in GNAT Ada83..2005 the "pragma License" is
>> non-functional other than the GNAT compiler warning. The compiler does
>> not insert the correct information that the GNU/GCC will require for
>> that feature in Jan, 2008. So, if your using GNAT or any other Ada that
>> does not support the GPL license requirement by Jan, 2008, Linux
>> might not load module.
>
> That's indeed a problem that should be fixed asap.

Last time I looked, _linux_ modules didn't use pragma License or any
specific compiler support to check module license. And the C part of
the compiler AFAIR remember never cared much for license checking
(though that might have changed). Sorry, at first glance it looks like
another one of those anon ideas, esp. since it involves GPL, the GNAT
and GCC compilers and the Linux kernel. This is the Bermuda triangle
of anon's understanding where strange things happen and outsiders are
lost in strange dreams of bewildering concepts ("there can only be one
GPL, it's THE LAW", for example).

Therefore I won't even bother to check anon's assertions being give a
source. Chances are to high it's a manifestation from anon's parallel
universe. I don't say he's wrong. I only say: Even checking wether he
is won't happen, until some references to sources are given and until
then: Be very cautious to believe.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada and licensing

[Markus E L]

Dirk Heinrichs wrote:

> Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>
>>> A warning is in order here: Anon has a really skewed realitionship to
>>> the GPL, so w/o checking I wouldn't even trust statements like "There
>>> is a movement to have GPL license module only in Linux". Frictions
>>> between the kernel license and "closed" modules have existed for a
>>> long time and the GPL-only philosophy endorsed by Linux Torvalds and
>>> others has been circumvented by external loaders for binary modules
>>> etc. I wonder to which event in 2008 anon is alluding (is there really
>>> a new development?).
>> 
>> I'm not sure about this either, but Greg K-H is pushing this since a long
>> time, maybe he just succeeded.
>
> A short search revealed that Linus has refused to let it happen:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475824
>
> So no, there won't be any problem for proprietary kernel modules in 2008.

Ah, see, there ..., what did I say? :-)

Thanks for the ref.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada and licensing

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library to your
customers. Still no RTL involved.

-- 
   C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.

Re: Ada and licensing

[Simon Wright]

Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes:

> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library to
> your customers. Still no RTL involved.

I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.

Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can see a
.o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built from it.

Re: Ada and licensing

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Simon Wright wrote:
> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:

>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library to
>> your customers. Still no RTL involved.
>
> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.

Not quite.

> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can see a
> .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built from it.

No.  The GPL is on the run-time library.  And .o files are not linked,
and thus not infected with the license of the run-time library.

Greetings,

Jacob (IANAL)
-- 
Rent-a-Minion Inc. Because good help is so hard to find.

Re: Ada and licensing

[Simon Wright]

Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:

> Simon Wright wrote:
>> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
>
>>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library to
>>> your customers. Still no RTL involved.
>>
>> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.
>
> Not quite.
>
>> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can see a
>> .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built from it.
>
> No.  The GPL is on the run-time library.  And .o files are not linked,
> and thus not infected with the license of the run-time library.

No. If that were the case, the LGPL could apply.

The GMGPL says

--  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 be covered by the GNU General Public License.  This
--  exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the
--  executable file might be covered by the GNU Public License.

and it's the part about instantiating generics that makes the
difference with Ada. See Robert Dewar posting at <http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_frm/thread/39771953fe5b2343/d0f4551a982449cc?lnk=st&q=&rnum=9#d0f4551a982449cc>

Compare bison.simple --

/* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a
   Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction.
   This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation
   in version 1.24 of Bison.  */

One would imagine there's a similar issue with the C++ headers -- yes,
from the GCC 4.0.0 iostream,

// As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software
// library without restriction.  Specifically, if other files instantiate
// templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile
// this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this
// file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by
// the GNU General Public License.  This exception does not however
// invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by
// the GNU General Public License.

Re: Ada and licensing

[Jeffrey Creem]

Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Simon Wright wrote:
>> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
> 
>>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library to
>>> your customers. Still no RTL involved.
>> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.
> 
> Not quite.
> 
>> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can see a
>> .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built from it.
> 
> No.  The GPL is on the run-time library.  And .o files are not linked,
> and thus not infected with the license of the run-time library.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Jacob (IANAL)

Except of course that GNAT uses template based expansion for generics 
thus if you instantiate a generic that is itself GPL, I don't think you 
can fully get around this by just using .o's

Re: Ada and licensing

[Markus E L]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:
>
>> Simon Wright wrote:
>>> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
>>
>>>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library to
>>>> your customers. Still no RTL involved.
>>>
>>> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>>> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can see a
>>> .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built from it.
>>
>> No.  The GPL is on the run-time library.  And .o files are not linked,
>> and thus not infected with the license of the run-time library.
>
> No. If that were the case, the LGPL could apply.

That's the old "using an interface or including a header already makes
it a derived work" hypothesis. I'm not sure how well that would hold up
under pressure and from a software engineering point it's certainly
nonsense (even if copyright law would provide a lever of enforcing
this point of view). I've always held that people trying to push that
agenda should be punished for crimes against proper software
engineering. (Mind you, nothing against you personally, I'm refering
e.g. to those that want to make all Linux kernel modules GPL because
those -- nolens volens need to read the kernel header files during
compilation).

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada and licensing

[Simon Wright]

Markus E L <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:
>>
>>> Simon Wright wrote:
>>>> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library
>>>>> to your customers. Still no RTL involved.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.
>>>
>>> Not quite.
>>>
>>>> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can
>>>> see a .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built
>>>> from it.
>>>
>>> No.  The GPL is on the run-time library.  And .o files are not
>>> linked, and thus not infected with the license of the run-time
>>> library.
>>
>> No. If that were the case, the LGPL could apply.
>
> That's the old "using an interface or including a header already
> makes it a derived work" hypothesis. I'm not sure how well that
> would hold up under pressure and from a software engineering point
> it's certainly nonsense (even if copyright law would provide a lever
> of enforcing this point of view). I've always held that people
> trying to push that agenda should be punished for crimes against
> proper software engineering. (Mind you, nothing against you
> personally, I'm refering e.g. to those that want to make all Linux
> kernel modules GPL because those -- nolens volens need to read the
> kernel header files during compilation).

I think that if your code had

   pragma Restrictions (No_Generic_Instantiations);

(is there such a beast?) *and* if your compiler vendor released a
sharable image of the rtl under the LGPL you could probably get by.
So far as I know libgnat.so and friends aren't released under the
LGPL.

But it was always Robert Dewar's view that generic instantiation
effectively imports the library's source into your binary -- hence the
GMGPL. And hence my suggestion that a .o could inherit (GM)GPL-ness
from the library.

Re: Ada and licensing + how to keep the RTL license from propagating :-)

[Markus E L]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Markus E L <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
>
>> Simon Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Simon Wright wrote:
>>>>> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose you could also compile with GNAT, and send a library
>>>>>> to your customers. Still no RTL involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that would be the same as distributing an executable.
>>>>
>>>> Not quite.
>>>>
>>>>> Not aware of anyone having discussed this, but as far as I can
>>>>> see a .o file would be GPL'd just as much as the .exe's built
>>>>> from it.
>>>>
>>>> No.  The GPL is on the run-time library.  And .o files are not
>>>> linked, and thus not infected with the license of the run-time
>>>> library.
>>>
>>> No. If that were the case, the LGPL could apply.
>>
>> That's the old "using an interface or including a header already
>> makes it a derived work" hypothesis. I'm not sure how well that
>> would hold up under pressure and from a software engineering point
>> it's certainly nonsense (even if copyright law would provide a lever
>> of enforcing this point of view). I've always held that people
>> trying to push that agenda should be punished for crimes against
>> proper software engineering. (Mind you, nothing against you
>> personally, I'm refering e.g. to those that want to make all Linux
>> kernel modules GPL because those -- nolens volens need to read the
>> kernel header files during compilation).
>
> I think that if your code had
>
>    pragma Restrictions (No_Generic_Instantiations);
>
> (is there such a beast?) *and* if your compiler vendor released a
> sharable image of the rtl under the LGPL you could probably get by.
> So far as I know libgnat.so and friends aren't released under the
> LGPL.

Oops sorry. Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by "If that
were the case, the LGPL could apply". It seemed like an attempt to
contradict " "And .o files are not linked" (and thus don't constitute
a derived work. I didn't talk about libgnat specifically. But to that
(perceieved) contradiction I had to reply, that I've seen both
positions, specifically with regard to including header files (which
is mor like deriving than reading an interface) and AFAIK (and I might
be wrong) in the Linux world the position has prevailed that including
headers is not deriving a work. But I might be completely wrong, again. 

And my last point, of course was, that from an SE position I get
annoyed every time I hear that using an interface should be equivalent
to creating a derived work. That point of view sucks, even if it is /
would be supported by the GPL. And if copyright law actually works
this strongly, I fear that using a protocol (SMB) might actually
influence the license of the product (Samba).


> But it was always Robert Dewar's view that generic instantiation
> effectively imports the library's source into your binary -- hence the
> GMGPL. 

Ah, yes. It was _his_ _view_. I mean, I understand now whence the
GMGPL came, but I'd like to emphasize that this is (a) still only a
perhaps professionally backed, but still an interpretation, based on
US copyright law, that might not completely hold to scrutiny world
wide (which is moot, because the GMGPL holds, I'm only talking about
"generic instantiation is inclusion") and (b) it would still be
(philosophically speaking as an SE) be wrong, because now (again) a
compiler implementation detail influences the license: What looks like
use (of interface) to the casual user is now suddenly derivation.

> And hence my suggestion that a .o could inherit (GM)GPL-ness
> from the library.

But have the unlinked modules already included relevant parts of the
generics (their body, not their interface)? If so, wouldn't that mean
that truly independent compilation is not possible with GNAT?

Something else: I could add the following at multiple other places in
the thread, but since I've already taken the effort to write a
message, I'll add it here:

What hasn't been mentioned yet, is the ultimate GPL circumvention
device (it has been hinted at, though) and that is the contract
between developer and customer:

  - Sell them closed _proprietary_ code and absolutely bind them
    contractually not ever to redistribute that code.

  - Seperately sell them a maintenance contract for a Gnat
    installation (even and especially take GPL Gnat: Not forbidden to
    sell a mini-maintenance contract for that to other people) and
    install Gnat at their site.

  - Offer them a third service contract for maintaining software
    packages at their site, specifically by compiling and packaging
    the software in question at their site.

Since bespoke customers will insist on getting source anyway, exactly
in this case you'll get maximal protection and none of the spill over
of the license from the runtime.

Since I assume AdaCore stripped the linking exceptions because they
thought they got pulled over the table by free riders among their big
customers (they can't seriously hope for small software houses and
small projects to pay their buy-yourself-out-ofGPL maintenance fees),
this is rather amusing: It's especially those cases in which (a)
distribution of the better Gnat within the organization cannot be
controlled effectively (as long as enough people keep mum and don't
snitch to AdaCore) and it's exactly those customers that won't want to
redistribute[1] but keep their source close, so will be happy with GPL
Gnat[2]. These people won't pay to get rid of the GPL, but rather to
get maintenance so the buy-and-get-linking-exception incentive won't
work for them.

(Notes: [1] Well, there is a snag, but I won't tell :-).

        [2] Until the flight software get's deployed, and a real
            vehicle is being sold to customers. It's probably not
            worth the troubled, but I wonder about the source for the
            flight software included in the embedded boards ROM, w/o
            comments of course. More realistically they need perhaps
            only buy a minimal "license" for the production build. 1
            seat, once.
)

And if the bespoke customer want's to use the software inhouse, there
is no reason at all to make the source open ...

So I (still) wonder what the purpose of stripping the linking
exception was, except to make it uncomfortable to small groups
deploying small numbers of binaries (typical bootstrap scenario) to
walk-in or phone-in customers. Things like a security utilities,
hardware testers, shells for CD burining or somehow else controlling
your personal computer come into mind.

OK, this all just to plumb for how far the GPL really goes. Everything
I said must be flagged with magic spell IANAL and "you're better of
checking this with your lawyer". And I can see some holes in my
arguments above, but I'm sufficiently certain they could be plugged.

Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada and licensing + how to keep the RTL license from propagating :-)

[Simon Wright]

Markus E L <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> Simon Wright wrote:

On the whole I think we agree up to here from previous posts ...

>> And hence my suggestion that a .o could inherit (GM)GPL-ness
>> from the library.
>
> But have the unlinked modules already included relevant parts of the
> generics (their body, not their interface)? If so, wouldn't that
> mean that truly independent compilation is not possible with GNAT?

If you say

  package My_Integer_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Ineger_IO (My_Type);

it seems hard to argue that you're not including p/o it rtl, whatever
the compiler.

> Something else: I could add the following at multiple other places in
> the thread, but since I've already taken the effort to write a
> message, I'll add it here:
>
> What hasn't been mentioned yet, is the ultimate GPL circumvention
> device (it has been hinted at, though) and that is the contract
> between developer and customer:
>
>   - Sell them closed _proprietary_ code and absolutely bind them
>     contractually not ever to redistribute that code.
>
>   - Seperately sell them a maintenance contract for a Gnat
>     installation (even and especially take GPL Gnat: Not forbidden to
>     sell a mini-maintenance contract for that to other people) and
>     install Gnat at their site.
>
>   - Offer them a third service contract for maintaining software
>     packages at their site, specifically by compiling and packaging
>     the software in question at their site.
>
> Since bespoke customers will insist on getting source anyway,
> exactly in this case you'll get maximal protection and none of the
> spill over of the license from the runtime.

The developer isn't distributing binaries that should come under the
GPL but the customer certainly would be!

> Since I assume AdaCore stripped the linking exceptions because they
> thought they got pulled over the table by free riders among their big
> customers (they can't seriously hope for small software houses and
> small projects to pay their buy-yourself-out-ofGPL maintenance fees),
> this is rather amusing: It's especially those cases in which (a)
> distribution of the better Gnat within the organization cannot be
> controlled effectively (as long as enough people keep mum and don't
> snitch to AdaCore) and it's exactly those customers that won't want to
> redistribute[1] but keep their source close, so will be happy with GPL
> Gnat[2]. These people won't pay to get rid of the GPL, but rather to
> get maintenance so the buy-and-get-linking-exception incentive won't
> work for them.

My (fairly large) employer is anxious to comply with the terms of the
contract with AdaCore, which is for support and for access to GMGPL'd
tools so that we can make proprietary products. We have no wish at all
to become embroiled in lawsuits about copyright or the GPL. Our
customers insist on knowing the IPR status of the bespoke products we
deliver to them (of course, they get the source, and they're not going
to deliver to anyone else -- at any rate, as someone said, not in the
sense used here!).

Don't forget that the suite is entirely GPL-d so it would be legal to
give a copy to every person in the organisation who was not working on
an AdaCore-supported project! But we don't want to do that either --
for a start, most of them don't use Ada; and for seconds, management
don't really get the GPL and think they have to pay to use.

Re: Ada and licensing + how to keep the RTL license from propagating :-)

[Markus E L]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Markus E L <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
>
>> Simon Wright wrote:
>
> On the whole I think we agree up to here from previous posts ...
>
>>> And hence my suggestion that a .o could inherit (GM)GPL-ness
>>> from the library.
>>
>> But have the unlinked modules already included relevant parts of the
>> generics (their body, not their interface)? If so, wouldn't that
>> mean that truly independent compilation is not possible with GNAT?
>
> If you say
>
>   package My_Integer_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Ineger_IO (My_Type);
>
> it seems hard to argue that you're not including p/o it rtl, whatever
> the compiler.

Depends. I admit (as I did in my last post) that the _letter_ of the
GPL might allow or encourage that reading. But what I've been aiming
at, is, that it seems odd from a software engineering point of view
that _using_ an interface makes the using module a "derived
work". Never mind the "include" which either refers to something only
C does or a an implementation detail of the compiler which might
choose to put the complete generic package into the sompiled
compilation unit) - or it might not.

Even using a generic package with new is (from a user perspective)
primarily a use of interface. The package announce the types and
operations it has available and at that point my program is only duly
noting it, nothing more. 

The point I'm aiming at, is, that if this sets a precedent, I see
hardly any barriers to GPLing (or restricting by license) knowledge
about protocols (again Samba comes into mind).


>> Something else: I could add the following at multiple other places in
>> the thread, but since I've already taken the effort to write a
>> message, I'll add it here:
>>
>> What hasn't been mentioned yet, is the ultimate GPL circumvention
>> device (it has been hinted at, though) and that is the contract
>> between developer and customer:
>>
>>   - Sell them closed _proprietary_ code and absolutely bind them
>>     contractually not ever to redistribute that code.
>>
>>   - Seperately sell them a maintenance contract for a Gnat
>>     installation (even and especially take GPL Gnat: Not forbidden to
>>     sell a mini-maintenance contract for that to other people) and
>>     install Gnat at their site.
>>
>>   - Offer them a third service contract for maintaining software
>>     packages at their site, specifically by compiling and packaging
>>     the software in question at their site.
>>
>> Since bespoke customers will insist on getting source anyway,
>> exactly in this case you'll get maximal protection and none of the
>> spill over of the license from the runtime.
>
> The developer isn't distributing binaries that should come under the
> GPL but the customer certainly would be!

Ah yes -- if it is not for in-house use, e.g. deployed embedded in
other products.

This was a only thought game anyway.


>> Since I assume AdaCore stripped the linking exceptions because they
>> thought they got pulled over the table by free riders among their big
>> customers (they can't seriously hope for small software houses and
>> small projects to pay their buy-yourself-out-ofGPL maintenance fees),
>> this is rather amusing: It's especially those cases in which (a)
>> distribution of the better Gnat within the organization cannot be
>> controlled effectively (as long as enough people keep mum and don't
>> snitch to AdaCore) and it's exactly those customers that won't want to
>> redistribute[1] but keep their source close, so will be happy with GPL
>> Gnat[2]. These people won't pay to get rid of the GPL, but rather to
>> get maintenance so the buy-and-get-linking-exception incentive won't
>> work for them.


> My (fairly large) employer is anxious to comply with the terms of the
> contract with AdaCore, which is for support and for access to GMGPL'd
> tools so that we can make proprietary products. We have no wish at all
> to become embroiled in lawsuits about copyright or the GPL. Our

The point I see in that is, that in large projects the cost for
licensing the compiler is in comparison not very large. As I said
earlier, my impression is, that dropping the linking exception from
the public compiler version mainly screws the not-so-large
not-customers-anyway part of the community [1]. 

And the "we don't tell when the license changed and what do you mean
by linking exception anyway?"  attitude of AdaCore as I experienced it
makes it rather difficult to determine the right point for a GMGPL
fork (on the other side the community doesn't seem to be really
interested, so I admit, AdaCore perhaps has understood the community
better than I do, or perhaps GtkAda users (I was talking about GtkAda
when I talked about a fork) that can't/won't buy the rather expensive
AdaCore support and are bothered by the elimination of the linking
exceptions are just not enough).


> customers insist on knowing the IPR status of the bespoke products we
> deliver to them (of course, they get the source, and they're not going
> to deliver to anyone else -- at any rate, as someone said, not in the
> sense used here!).

>
> Don't forget that the suite is entirely GPL-d so it would be legal to
> give a copy to every person in the organisation who was not working on
> an AdaCore-supported project! 

> But we don't want to do that either -- for a start, most of them
> don't use Ada; and for seconds, management don't really get the GPL
> and think they have to pay to use.

This is the most funny part :-)).  And dovetails nicely with [1]
above.


Regards -- Markus

Re: Ada and licensing + how to keep the RTL license from propagating :-)

[Simon Wright]

Simon Wright <simon.j.wright@mac.com> writes:

> If you say
>
>   package My_Integer_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Ineger_IO (My_Type);
>
> it seems hard to argue that you're not including p/o it rtl, whatever
                                                   ^^^^^^
                                                 part of the  (sorry)
> the compiler.

Re: Ada and licensing + how to keep the RTL license from propagating :-)

[Markus E L]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Simon Wright <simon.j.wright@mac.com> writes:
>
>> If you say
>>
>>   package My_Integer_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Ineger_IO (My_Type);
>>
>> it seems hard to argue that you're not including p/o it rtl, whatever
>                                                    ^^^^^^
>                                                  part of the  (sorry)

No problem, I figured that out :-)

>> the compiler.

Regards -- Markus