Source licensing (was Re: Ada Stuff and some confusion

["Mark Lundquist" <mark@rational.com>]

chris.danx <chris.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nh0z6.4622$%W5.458504@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> I also want to know about my Ada sources and licensing.  I use GNAT at the
> minute (I don't expect this to change until I win the lottery, and even
then
> I doubt I'll change.  It's the best compiler I've used, ever!).  My
question
> is to do with GPL.  I don't really understand it.  I think it means that
any
> software I write with it must also be GPL'ed (or LGPL'ed).

It doesn't mean that.  We're talking about original *source*code* that you
yourself will author, right?  Well, the only possible way any software
license could have any bearing on that would be if one of the tools you used
to *write* the source code (like an editor, or the operating system) was
licensed to you under conditions imposed on the work product you generate
using the tool, in which case (a) I have no idea whether such a condition
would be legally enforceable (but I rather doubt it); (b) nobody would
release a tool under such a license (because nobody else in turn would use
it, since the point of editors for example is to produce works that you
own), and most importantly, (c) that license would not be the GPL, since the
GPL doesn't say that!  and (d) note that that is totally different than
licensing runtime libraries etc. linked into your work product, there the
issue is that a *copy* (as in, "copyright"!) of the bits is made.

So no, the GNAT license, or any other compiler license, doesn't prevent you
from doing whatever you want to do with source code that you own!

>  Now I have two
> questions about this.  Can I just put a comment in the source, at the top
in
> flashing lights, "this source is licensed under GPL, see license.txt for
> further details" or do I have to include the license in the source.
>

Sure, you don't have to include the full text in the comment.  See
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl-howto.html.

> My second question is can I ditch the license and go with my own.

Absolutely, you can license it any way you want, or not at all (not grant
anyone the right to make a copy).  Or, you can place it in the public
domain -- then it "belongs to everyone", and anyone can make copies.

If we are talking about the "how to program in Ada" examples, then I would
think a GPL-style source code license would be kind of pointless.  I'd
either place them in the public domain or retain all rights, or just not
sweat it at all.  If we're talking about actual open-source software, then
something like a GPL makes sense.

www.fsf.org has a whole list of various open source licenses that you can
look at (don't be thrown off by the lame "copyleft" terminology).

>  I don't
> really have a problem with making it GPL'ed, but i do find the license too
> wordy in a technical sense.

Well... if you're going to have an open source license, you might start with
something like the GPL and fine-tune the terms to your liking (that assumes
that you care about the terms and studied the GPL enough to understand them
in the first place!)  But I would think that trying to come up with a
simpler "GPL lite" is probably not time well-spent.  After all, the
technical wordiness doesn't make it so onerous to distribute under the GPL
in the first place (see above).  The GPL exists for one purpose, which is to
grant the licensee the right to make and redistribute copies under certain
terms.  If it could be less technical and wordy, while still serving the
purpose for which it was designed, then it would be!

But take a look at the examples on the FSF site...

>
> What about this?
>
>
> <[snip]>
>
> This is just off the top of my head.  Sounds GPLish but clearer i think.

To me, it's a lot less clear than the GPL.  (It's preciesly the technical
wordiness that makes the GPL clearer!)

Best Regards!
-- Mark Lundquist

P.S., thanks for putting up an Ada examples page.  You're doing us all a
favor, and every little bit helps!  Pass the URL along when it's ready! :-)