Re: Precisely why can't official FSF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtime en masse from GNAT GPL Community Edition?

[antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl]

Dan'l Miller <optikos@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > "Dan'l Miller" writes:
> > > But the rights to copy have already been irrevocably ?assigned? to FSF,
> > 
> > Do you know the terms of the assignment contract?
> 
> ?When a group at NYU developed the GNU Ada Compiler, with funding from the US Air Force, the contract explicitly called for donating the resulting code to the Free Software Foundation.?
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html
> 
> It is only a matter of effort to find that US Air Force contract in the public records of the federal government.
> 
> Here is some prior(-to-now) edition of the assignment contract:
> http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html
> 
> This is the process, specifying the content of the assignment contract:
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html
> 
> pertinent commentary on it:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
> 
> > >> Anyway, when you
> > > ?you? = AdaCore here?
> > 
> > No, "you" = Dan'l Miller,
> 
> No, I am not an official maintainer of FSF GNAT.  I speak only of official maintainers of FSF GNAT.  Quit casting aspersions on my personal asparagus.  I am merely a passive observer, a spectator, chewing popcorn, sitting in my seat in the audience.
> 
> > > Remember, wasn't AdaCore the party who removed the FSF's Runtime
> > > Exception via a script ?after? AdaCore irrevocably assigning the
> > > source code to FSF?
> > 
> > The runtime exception still applies to the version that FSF got.
> 
> What FSF got was irrevocable assignment of all ownership.  The content of the files doesn't matter to the owner of the legal rights to that content.  As assignee, FSF owns the content of those rights-assigned files no matter what the assigner legitimately put into them as work for hire.

I think you have big misunderstanding how copyright works.  FSF
got files at some specific time (in particular due to initial
assignment).  Changes to those file also are covered by
copyright, you can distribute changed files only by agreement
of _all_ copyright owners, in this case Ada Core(additions) and
FSF (base version).  Do not be fooled by copyright statements
in files: copyright exists even if there is no explicit
statement in files.  And changing copyright notices is
extra work (and it interrupts normal software workflow)
so Ada Core used to have wrong copyright notices.
Robert Dewar (who IIUC has law degree) claimed that
copyright notices does not matter, but at some moment
Ada Core decided to put correct license condition into
files.  I guess that they decided to give misleading
statement about ownership as this does not cause
serious problems.

Concerning FSF, I think that they know what Ada Core
is doing and accept that.  I personaly think that
Ada Core is subverting GPL, but apparently FSF
either thinks that what Ada Core is doing is right or
decided to compromise to have a contributor.

Note that without paying customers Ada Core would
get out of business and Ada Core thinks that
it needs licence restrictions to get enough money.
So sticking to GPL spirit as I see it probably
would mean no GNAT in the future or at least
stagnation (adapting GNAT to GCC backend is
a continuous effort that would put significant
load on volunteer maintainers).

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch