Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch

["Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:28:38 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote :
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:58:40 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>>
>> > I received detailed answers from AdaCore's Robert Dewar and Arnaud
>> > Charlet regarding the licenses of software downloaded from their
>> > servers.  In summary:
>> >
>> > - All software downloaded from AdaCore is pure GPL, no matter what the
>> >   headers say.
>> >
>> > - This also applies to software downloaded from the CVS server in
>> >   source-only form.
>> >
>> > - They refuse to give any assurances regarding copyright ownership, so
>> >   I feel that I now need to go ask the authors.
>> >
>> > - They will not sign a license document, even if a lawyer asked them
>> >   (they are not required to sign anything, of course).
>>
>> I'm a little confused by all this...
>>
>> Can you tell us which combination of the following is true, from
>> what you understand:
>>
>> 1) the GMGPL licences issued by AdaCode and others are being revoked?
> 
> Switched to pure GPL, not revoked. The "linking and generic
> instantiation" exception is revoked.
> 
>> 2) AdaCore and others say they never granted licences under GMGPL?
> 
> They don't say that, but they refuse to give details on when the switch
> took place. I don't know. Ask them. From a theoretical standpoint, I am
> indeed quite worried that I have downloaded and redistributed AdaCore's
> software, thinking in good faith I had the right to do so when in fact
> I didn't, since I didn't have written permission from any of the
> copyright holders. Remember, the headers amount to naught from a legal
> perspective. Practically speaking, I don't think AdaCore will sue me,
> or anyone else, for that. IANAL.
> 
>> 3) the licences were granted and are still in force?
> 
> I don't know. I asked but they wouldn't go into specifics. Ask them for
> yourself, if you're concerned.
> 
>> 4) all licencing terms embedded in the distributions are repudiated?
> 
> They never had any legal force; only a signed statement from the
> copyright holder has legal force.
> 
>> 5) the SW is Free (in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html terms)?
> 
> Yes, since it is under GPL. That much they are willing to say and
> certify, but not in writing :(
> 
>> (does this cover the basic possibilities?)
>>
>> the code in question being GtkAda, libgnat, GLADE, etc.
>>
>> In some cases (GtkAda?), the original authors transferred copyright to
>> AdaCore(?) - did the original authors revoke or repudiate the licences
>> in effecting this transfer?
> 
> As I explained above, I don't know, and AdaCore refused to tell me. Ask
> each author individually.

I'm sorry you have been put in this position - relaying and interpreting
apparent changes in licensing conditions.  The issues raised here
are potentially of very wide interest to many millions of licencees
and licensors under the GPL and other Free software licences.

Under English law (and presumably most other places), signed statements
are not required to form a contract.  In particular, if the parties
behaved and believed that there is a contract then one exists.
Evidence such as files, ftp sites, emails etc. can help support
the claim that a contract existed.  Surely the behaviour of
the authors and users backs the claim that licences were granted?
Signatures on bits of paper might help, but still don't provide
a full guarantee.  IANAL.

As regards the GPL, it appears to be a perpetual, sub-licensable,
non-revocable (absense of breaches) licence.  The GMGPL terms
add to this, but don't change these basic features.

I am at a loss to understand what basis there is for revoking the
licences already issued.  As a party to the licence
contract between myself and the authors, I feel aggrieved.
I have kept to my side of the bargain.  I'm not convinced they
have kept to theirs.

Some people here will want a formal opinion.  I don't feel I have
need or resources for a professional view myself.  But I am being
made extremely wary of exposing myself to the possible legal
risks involved in *any* substantive business project involving
these software components.  The way these licences seem to be
being revoked, changed or withdrawn, without adequate explanation
is certainly a breach of the implied social "contract" created
when software is published.
--
Adrian