Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

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

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> M E Leypold writes :
> > Ludovic Brenta writes:
> > > The only thing the first customer can do to prevent that is to sign a
> > > contract with you, whereby you assign your copyright to him (which as I
> > > understand is not legal in Germany), or you agree not to distribute
> > > your program to anyone else.  At this point, the GPL gives the four
> > > freedoms to the (sole) licensee, while at the same time the contract
> > > restricts *your* freedom to redistribute. If I were a customer, I would
> > > systematically insist on such terms when I bought custom-made software.
> >
> > Exactly. Two complications arise:
> >
> >  - I don't want to hand over exclusively my container and my widget
> >    library :-).
> 
> You can stipulate that in the contract; you can say anything you want
> in a contract. For example:


Of course. Only wanted to hint that things are more complicated than
in your scenario.


> ARTICLE 3
> 
> The customer agrees to pay the sum of X to the developer.

This obviously is the most important part :-).



> 
> Signed, etc.
> 
> >  - The customer, as I have written, is not sure, wether such a
> >    contract with me is binding. After all: I have the source, the libs
> >    are under GPL -- doesn't that entitle me to distribute under GPL (a
> >    right I cannot waive w/o the GPL lapsing for the libs).  So the
> >    customer is not sure. "Not sure" in business translates as
> >    "risk". Instead of jumping through the hoops to consult a lawyer,
> >    who might or might not give a definite answer to that, they decide
> >    to go with another offer that looks less fraught with ifs.
> 
> IANAL either, but I understand that a signed contract overrides any
> unsigned license, provided that:

AFAIK there is no concept like "license" in, i.e. German
law. everything is based on contract law (implied contracts where
necessary) or rights that are granted one sided by a party to the
general public by some declaration (like "hereby I gift XYZ to the
public domain).

I'm not sure I got that right, perhaps it's also splitting
hairs. IANAL, you know.

> - the contract is legal (does not force any party to do illegal things)
> - there is a compensation clause (i.e. you receive money or other form
> of retribution; a contract has to have obligations for both parties)
> 
> If you sign a contract whereby you agree not to distribute your program
> to third parties, then your customer has full assurance, and can sue
> you later for breach of contract. To reinforce the assurances, you can
> even stipulate which court is competent should the need arise.


> This remains true even if you license your program under a non-free,
> closed-source, proprietary EULA. So, if your customer is really
> concerned, they should have signed a contract with you already, even
> before discussing the license terms.

But doesn't the GPL (on the libs) lapse then if/when the customer
tries to restrict my distribution rights :-)?

> > It doesn't equate to freedom in my book to have to refer to a lawyer
> > all the time. Quite the contrary.
> 
> You need a lawyer to assist you in legal matters, just like you need a

The keyword is "all the time". 

> physician to assist you in health matters and a butcher to assist you

If I have to refer to a physician all the time, I'm very ill. If I
have to refere to a lawyer all the time (not only for checking/writing
the written contract but also for simple forward planning or even for
checking wether COPYING is binding, ahem, ahem), something is amiss in
the freedom department.

> in meat procurement matters, or like your customer needs a software
> engineer to assist him in computer-related matters. This is orthogonal
> to freedom.


Regards -- Markus