Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"george" <gshapovalov@gmail.com> writes:

> (Sorry if this comes as a dupe - the session died while posting. Does
> anybody know of a public news server that allows to post?)
> 
> M E Leypold wrote:
> > I don't think that's specific enough. He ist just talking about
> Then just write to him and pose all these questions ;). I am not the
> right person to ask as I am technically "just spreading rumors" :).

I will. Nonetheless, your answer was useful. As I explained in another
post, I just wanted to ask c.l.a wether there are any
sources/documents on the licensing question I have overlooked (like
"That articleof Jan 2005 from Robert Dewar which clarified all this
questions once and for all" :-)). It seems that not.

> 
> > "package". The distributables in question are (for me):
> >
> >  - GtkAda 2.4.0, Source as from libre (no license on site).
> This is the one I was referring to in my email, so you may take the
> meaning of that responce as concerning this version.
> 
> >  - GtkAda 2.4.0, Win32 executables from libre (no license on site).

> The GPL talks about distribution of sources and binaries, so whatever
> is produced from above sources should be covered (it is a derivative
> work technically).

Covered by what? That's the question. I mean: There is a strong
indication that GtkAda at least _was_ once GMGPL and exactly that
source is available from libre via CVS. So "all packages", whatever is
meant by "package" seems to be a bit too inclusive.

Also the 2.4.0 source still have the same COPYING and file headers as
the older GTkAda sources, so why they are suddenly GPL?


> >  - GtkAda 2.2.1, as advertised on freshmeat (as GMGPL!) and still served
> >
> >  - GtkAda Sources, various versions, as distributed via anon CVS from libre.
> These you should ask about.
> 
> >  - Finally: The single files in all versions above which carry a GMGPL
> >    copyright header. If one where to strip all build mechanisms from
> >    the original GtkAda and just use the *.ads and *.adb files to build
> >    a new binding: Would that be GMGPL?

> No, you cannot simply strip all other pointers to legal information or
> otherwise. The exception clauses were left there simply because they
> did not bother so far to strip them. This is the fragment from his
> response to my next email talking about some of this:

I did not talk about "stripping pointers to legal information". I
talked about picking single files, which IMHO and as such (but IANAL)
fall under the GMGPL from the supposedly GPLed GtkAda package.


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > However I can see the individual source files still have that exception
> > clause. (Source was obtained from
> > https://libre2.adacore.com/GtkAda/
> > couple of days ago). Perhaps it should be removed then
> 
> Right, that's a desirable thing to do, which we will do at some point.
> 
> > I could sed these lines out of the installed files, but
> > 1. I do not think I am legally in position to do this,
> > 2. I would rather not touch the sources unnecessarily..
> 
> Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source
> files have
> no real legal value anyway.

Again that fiction. We will see.


> > The question still is: Was GtkAda ever under GMGPL? In which sense?
> > What was the last GMGPL version (ACT doesn't document that very clearly).

> It most definitely was, the change to GPL is recent. However I only
> started cleaning up Ada in Gentoo recently, so I cannot comment on
> particulars.

Well, well. (Shaking my head).


> 
> > > (closely matching the Trolltech situation at the moment AFAICS).
> >
> > Only that Trolltech AFAIR has a linking exception for QT?

> No, it does not, the situation is very much the same now. In fact I
> suspect this transition to GPL may have been influenced by Trolltech's
> example (they also had somewhat obscure licensing scheme in the
> beginning, but transitioned to GPL/commercial as of some years ago).

> > > If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting
> > > AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources.


> > I might just do that. I'll keep all informed.


> Right, I hope they finally clean the sources up and we don't have these
> questions coming up every month, like t is now :).

Dis we have the GtkAda wuestion coming up already? I don't had the
impression. I'm reading c.l.a. now for quite some time and must have
missed that. Especially since Debian distributes GtkAda 2.4.0 as GMGPL
and 2.2.1 is still advertised at freshmeat as GMGPL I can't imagine
that the licensing of GtkAda has been discussed excessively yet.

Regards -- Markus