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: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... References: <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <449d2a28$0$11075$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <449d5c03$0$11074$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <6sbqsh6jv7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1151319888.917063.38120@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1151325590.407354.208450@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> From: M E Leypold Date: 26 Jun 2006 15:46:34 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.218.245 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151329226 88.72.218.245 (26 Jun 2006 15:40:26 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!130.59.10.21.MISMATCH!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5082 Date: 2006-06-26T15:46:34+02:00 List-Id: "Ludovic Brenta" 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