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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6d608a86e65c95d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-05 20:43:20 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttls1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Source licensing (was Re: Ada Stuff and some confusion X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:43:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.66.55 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttls1.wa.home.com 986528599 24.20.66.55 (Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:43:19 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:43:19 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6547 Date: 2001-04-06T03:43:19+00:00 List-Id: chris.danx 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! :-)