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 Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!newspeer1-win.ntli.net!newsfe3-gui.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" Subject: Re: Ada in Debian: most libraries will switch to the pure GPL in Etch User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1151422118.772405.307200@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:40:51 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.10.238.153 X-Trace: newsfe3-gui.ntli.net 1151426451 82.10.238.153 (Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:40:51 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:40:51 BST Organization: NTL Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5074 Date: 2006-06-27T16:40:51+00:00 List-Id: 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