Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Steffen Huber]

Hi,

I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I told them that the
licence used is the GMGPL, and they refused to host the project because this
licence is not an official OSI licence.

So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?
2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence -
    has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first
    one to try?
3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
    that?
4.) Find another licence which is comparable to the GMGPL, but has another
    name and is already OSI approved - any ideas?

Comments, suggestions?

Steffen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Robert Dewar]

Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>...
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I 
> told them that the licence used is the GMGPL, and they 
> refused to host the project because this
> licence is not an official OSI licence.

Well it just goes to show that the world of free software
and open source software is not free of beaurocratic idiocy. The
general idea at source forge is to ensure open licenses that permit
sufficient minimal capabilities. Obviously it is the case that if you
take a permitted license and then give MORE freedom to the licensee it
still qualifies, but once people are afflicted by administrator's
disease, such obviously truths seem to
escape. 

Why not put it in source forge with BOTH licenses, you just
make a header that says that this software is licensed under the GPL
or the GMGPL, with the user being able to
choose. That should satisfy both goals.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ted Dennison]

Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>...
> 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
>     that?

I did some inquiries on it back when ESR first set up the web page. I
discovered that the meer mention of Ada is a great way to get ESR to
quit answering your emails. :-(

However, it looks like they have a mailing list to handle license
discussion now (see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html ),
so it shouldn't be so tough to get discussion about it anymore. But
OSI's kind of a joke these days anyway.

I'd just try to explain to your SourceForge contact that it uses the
same license at the FSF's own GNU Ada compiler. Its listed on GNU
website as a GPL-compatable free software license (its on
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, imaginatively titled
"The license of the run-time units of the GNU Ada compiler"). That
ought to be good enough for anyone. If that *isn't* good enough for
them, then you are clearly dealing with someone who's a bit clueless,
so try to ask for someone a bit more senior to "help resolve the
issue".

-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
All right; who's been cooking hot dogs in the Warp Drive?

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:25:08 +0100, Steffen Huber wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I told them that the
> licence used is the GMGPL, and they refused to host the project because this
> licence is not an official OSI licence.

Odd as vim is at sourceforge (vim.sf.net) and it doesn't appear on the
OSI list it says Other/Propetarian (it is not Propetarian though)

Anyway point them here:

   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

   The license of the run-time units of the GNU Ada compiler.
   This is much like that of Guile.

> So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
> 1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?

The FSF foundation have made their own after sourceforge made their code
propetarian (ironic). I think perhaps SF only wants projects that are
free and for propetarian 

   http://savannah.gnu.org/

I don't know it this only works for GNU projects though, you must check
that.

> 2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence -
>     has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first
>     one to try?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

> 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
>     that?

We should do that. I cannot see why it shouldn't be accepted. And it
would be nice to have it on the list.

> 4.) Find another licence which is comparable to the GMGPL, but has another
>     name and is already OSI approved - any ideas?

You can do like the GNADE project did:

   http://gnade.sourceforge.net/#download

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:58:12 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol wrote:
> The FSF foundation have made their own after sourceforge made their code
> propetarian (ironic). I think perhaps SF only wants projects that are
> free and for propetarian 

Oops sent it before i finished the sentence.

.. and for propetarian they want to sell their software I guess.

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Marin David Condic]

Ummmm.... Excuse my ignorance. "Propetarian"? Couldn't find a definition in
Webster's and Google turned up nothing. Some kind of legal definition?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrna655ki.sg.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Odd as vim is at sourceforge (vim.sf.net) and it doesn't appear on the
> OSI list it says Other/Propetarian (it is not Propetarian though)
>

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On 7 Feb 2002 06:51:58 -0800, Ted Dennison wrote:
> Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>...
>> 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
>>     that?
> 
> However, it looks like they have a mailing list to handle license
> discussion now (see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html ),
> so it shouldn't be so tough to get discussion about it anymore. But
> OSI's kind of a joke these days anyway.

Is there somebody who wants to do it? I mean instead of that 5 of us all
send e-mail asking for GMGPL be certified, it would be better if one did
it.

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Steffen Huber]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:25:08 +0100, Steffen Huber wrote:
[snip]

Many thanks for your suggestions.

> > So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
> > 1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?
> 
> The FSF foundation have made their own after sourceforge made their code
> propetarian (ironic). I think perhaps SF only wants projects that are
> free and for propetarian
> 
>    http://savannah.gnu.org/
> 
> I don't know it this only works for GNU projects though, you must check
> that.

I just had a look. They seem to accept everything as long as it is a
"GPL compatible licence", which the GMGPL obviously is. Now I am trying
to find out if there is something vital missing from Savannah that
SourceForge provides. They seem to be based on the same code...

Did GNU ever promote Savannah? I never heard of it before.

> > 2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence -
> >     has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first
> >     one to try?
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

I will try. Thanks for the link.

> > 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
> >     that?
> 
> We should do that. I cannot see why it shouldn't be accepted. And it
> would be nice to have it on the list.

Now who is "we" ;-)

I would prefer if someone whose first language is English does it and who
knows the GPL and the GMGPL well enough.

> > 4.) Find another licence which is comparable to the GMGPL, but has another
> >     name and is already OSI approved - any ideas?
> 
> You can do like the GNADE project did:
> 
>    http://gnade.sourceforge.net/#download

Interesting approach I have to say. However, I think the approach is not
100% "clean" - after all, the SourceForge page tells me that the Licence
used is GPL.

Steffen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Stephen Leake]

Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I told them that the
> licence used is the GMGPL, and they refused to host the project because this
> licence is not an official OSI licence.
> 
> So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
> 1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?
> 2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence -
>     has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first
>     one to try?
> 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
>     that?
> 4.) Find another licence which is comparable to the GMGPL, but has another
>     name and is already OSI approved - any ideas?
> 
> Comments, suggestions?

I was not aware of any of these issues. I strongly suggest we get the
GMGPL approved as an OSI license.

Apparently OSI's website is www.opensource.org (try www.osi.org just
for kicks :).

The list of currently approved licenses is at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

Since the GPL and the LGPL are approved, and the GMGPL is sort of
halfway between those, I don't think there is any technical issue to
getting it approved.

This page describes the process of getting a license approved:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html

I guess anyone can take the initiative to get the GMGPL approved, but
it seems like ACT should, if they want to.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ted Dennison]

Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>...
> So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
> 1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?

Sorry I forgot to answer this part...

Two good alternatives:
http://www.adapower.net/ - David Botton's contribution.
http://savannah.gnu.org/ - The FSF's SourceForge clone.

There isn't a lot on either yet (well, Savannah has a lot when you
don't compare it to SourceForge), but both places are liable to be a
bit more clueful about the GMGPL. It looks like using Savannah might
also be an easier way to make your project an official GNU project.
I've tried doing it after the fact, and can tell you to expect many
months between emails. :-(

-- 
T.E.D.   Work     -  mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
All right who's been cooking hot dogs in the Warp Drive?

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Dan Andreatta]

dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) wrote in
news:4519e058.0202070829.276f7773@posting.google.com: 

 There isn't a lot on either yet (well, Savannah has a lot when you
> don't compare it to SourceForge), but both places are liable to be a
> bit more clueful about the GMGPL. It looks like using Savannah might
> also be an easier way to make your project an official GNU project.

There are other *good* reasons to prefer savannah. Read:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/announce/2001-November/000028.html

-- 
D. Andreatta
Univ. of S. Carolina
Chemistry Dept.

Bruce I:   ... American beer is a little like making love in a canoe!
Bruce III: Making love in a canoe? 
Bruce I:   It's f***ing close to water!

--- Monty Python, "The Bruces", Live at the Holliwood Bowl

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[David Starner]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:25:08 +0100, Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> wrote:
> I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I told them that the
> licence used is the GMGPL, and they refused to host the project because this
> licence is not an official OSI licence.

Did you refer to it as the Gnat-Modified GPL? It's not an offical name;
I just put the exception in the license box for Ngeadal, and it was
accepted.
 
-- 
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu, dvdeug/jabber.com (Jabber)
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ted Dennison]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrna656kd.sg.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> On 7 Feb 2002 06:51:58 -0800, Ted Dennison wrote:
> > Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de>...
> >> 3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
> >>     that?
> > 
> > However, it looks like they have a mailing list to handle license
> > discussion now (see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html ),
> > so it shouldn't be so tough to get discussion about it anymore. But
> > OSI's kind of a joke these days anyway.
> 
> Is there somebody who wants to do it? I mean instead of that 5 of us all
> send e-mail asking for GMGPL be certified, it would be better if one did
> it.

As you can probably tell from my previous post, I don't have a lot of
faith in OSI myself. So I would probably be a bad choice (not to
mention the fact that I'm taking the next 2 weeks off to see the
Olympics...)

Since things are done through a mailing list, it would be a fairly
simple matter for someone to make a query, then everyone else can just
join the mailing list and pipe in when appropriate. Again, I'd be a
bad choice since I won't be around to answer responses for a while.
But if no one else does it, remind me the last week in February when I
get back and I'll do it.

-- 
T.E.D.   
         Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo:
Ted_Dennison)
         Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
Thanks for letting me change magnetic patterns on your hard disk.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Frode Tennebø]

On Thursday 07 February 2002 15:51 Ted Dennison wrote:

> I did some inquiries on it back when ESR first set up the web page. I
> discovered that the meer mention of Ada is a great way to get ESR to
> quit answering your emails. :-(

Say, why is he so AR about Ada? Does anybody know? Did he have some 
traumatic childhood experiences related to Ada?

 -Frode :-)

-- 
^ Frode Tenneb� | email: frode@tennebo.com | Frode@IRC ^
|  with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer;  |

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Nick Roberts]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:11:29 -0500, "Marin David Condic"
<dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:

>Ummmm.... Excuse my ignorance. "Propetarian"? Couldn't find a definition in
>Webster's and Google turned up nothing. Some kind of legal definition?

I suspect they mean "Proprietary".

-- 
Nick Roberts

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ed Falis]

Nick Roberts wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:11:29 -0500, "Marin David Condic"
> <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ummmm.... Excuse my ignorance. "Propetarian"? Couldn't find a definition in
>>Webster's and Google turned up nothing. Some kind of legal definition?
>>
> 
> I suspect they mean "Proprietary".
> 
> 

Well, I guess it's ok if it sounds something like the right word, eh? 
Seems to be a going thing ;-)

- Ed

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Al Christians]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> I guess anyone can take the initiative to get the GMGPL approved, but
> it seems like ACT should, if they want to.
> 

Not to start a lot of chaos over licensing, but when I installed GNAT
3.14p the other day, I didn't see any exception to GPL in the license
that came up as part of the install procedure (under Win NT). Is it
there? I do see the exception in the source code for library units,
however.  Not a lawyer, IDK which applies, and I doubt that it matters 
for me. I wonder if there is any change in ACT's licensing with this 
release, or if the exception will still come with GNAT even when GNAT 
is more closely integrated with the rest of gcc.  Can anyone explain, 
please?

TIA.


Al Christians

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ted Dennison]

Nick Roberts wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:11:29 -0500, "Marin David Condic"
> <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ummmm.... Excuse my ignorance. "Propetarian"? Couldn't find a definition in
>>Webster's and Google turned up nothing. Some kind of legal definition?
>>
> 
> I suspect they mean "Proprietary".


"Proprietary" wouldn't be quite right, as it implies that the license 
itself is proprietary, which is certianly not the case for any license 
I've ever seen.

It seems like a proper construction to me for the point they are trying 
to make, but I agree that the word itself looks horrible.

 

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Robert Dewar]

Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<u4rktqphk.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>...
> I guess anyone can take the initiative to get the GMGPL 
> approved, but it seems like ACT should, if they want to.

We have no particularly interest in getting this license
OSI certified. As long as it is acceptable to the GNU
project, that's all we care about. We have no objection
to someone else following through on this, but please do
not wait around for ACT to do it!

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ted Dennison]

Al Christians wrote:

> Not to start a lot of chaos over licensing, but when I installed GNAT
> 3.14p the other day, I didn't see any exception to GPL in the license
> that came up as part of the install procedure (under Win NT). Is it
> there? I do see the exception in the source code for library units,


Its only there for some parts of Gnat, not for the whole thing. If you 
are hoping to use large parts of the compiler itself in a project, then 
you will have to use GPL. The units with exceptions in them are mostly 
user packages (and I think some bits of the runtime), not compiler 
source packages.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ted Dennison]

Dan Andreatta wrote:

> dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) wrote in
> news:4519e058.0202070829.276f7773@posting.google.com: 
> 
>  There isn't a lot on either yet (well, Savannah has a lot when you
> 
>>don't compare it to SourceForge), but both places are liable to be a
>>bit more clueful about the GMGPL. It looks like using Savannah might
>>also be an easier way to make your project an official GNU project.
> There are other *good* reasons to prefer savannah. Read:
> http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/announce/2001-November/000028.html


..the most damning of which in my mind is the inability to fully extract 
projects. In this economy, who knows what may happen to VA next week or 
next month. If you can't make a local archive and it goes bye-bye, you 
(and everyone using it) are hosed.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Al Christians]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> Its only there for some parts of Gnat, not for the whole thing. If you
> are hoping to use large parts of the compiler itself in a project, then
> you will have to use GPL. The units with exceptions in them are mostly
> user packages (and I think some bits of the runtime), not compiler
> source packages.
>

If some brain-dead user (say, for example, someone like me) just writes 
and compiles some Ada with gnatmake and gets an execuatable (eg for 
Windows), is he yet (as of 3.14p) pretty safe in figuring that the 
executable falls under the exception? Is there any library code that 
doesn't follow the exception?  Will the answer to this change with the 
new GNAT versions that are more closely integrated with the rest of 
gcc?  

TIA for any info.


Al

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Eric Merritt]

This doesnt make any sense. I have a project a
sourceforge based in Ada that is under the modified
GPL. I think the only diffrence is that I labeled it
as 'Other/Proprietary License'. They had no issue with
it at all. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[David Starner]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:21:04 GMT, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> ..the most damning of which in my mind is the inability to fully extract 
> projects. In this economy, who knows what may happen to VA next week or 
> next month. If you can't make a local archive and it goes bye-bye, you 
> (and everyone using it) are hosed.

You can make a local archive of the CVS - they offer the CVSRoot for
download. Everything else is more or less replacable.

-- 
David Starner / Давид Старнзр - starner@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Georg Bauhaus]

Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
:  In this economy, who knows what may happen to VA next week or 
: next month. If you can't make a local archive and it goes bye-bye, you 
: (and everyone using it) are hosed.

There is the _inter_net and there are portals. Guess who is
interested in portals and who is interested in networks...

my 2c,
- georg

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:11:29 -0500, Marin David Condic wrote:
> Ummmm.... Excuse my ignorance. "Propetarian"? Couldn't find a definition in
> Webster's and Google turned up nothing. Some kind of legal definition?

Sorry it was my mistake it says Other/Proprietary License. 


-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:59:38 -0800 (PST), Eric Merritt wrote:
> This doesnt make any sense. I have a project a
> sourceforge based in Ada that is under the modified
> GPL. I think the only diffrence is that I labeled it
> as 'Other/Proprietary License'. They had no issue with
> it at all. 

I don't think it is so nice, because a lot of people will be likely not
to accept other licenses than GPL compliant licenses. The GMGPL is in
effect the same as GPL apart from the extra freedom added by it.

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Robert Dewar]

Eric Merritt <cyberlync@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.1013140805.29162.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> This doesnt make any sense. I have a project a
> sourceforge based in Ada that is under the modified
> GPL. I think the only diffrence is that I labeled it
> as 'Other/Proprietary License'. They had no issue with
> it at all. 

In fact I would just label it as GPL. Yes, there is a
special exception to the GPL restrictions, but clearly
the GPL applies, in that you can do anything permitted
by the GPL, so since Source Forge is in the business
of ensuring acceptable licenses, it is clear that the
GPL applies equally well here.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Marin David Condic]

Ahhhh. O.K. Gotcha now.

So under that heading does Sourceforge mean that the software is Proprietary
or the license is Proprietary? I'd have to believe the former. But then
what's the point? If you put source code up on a web site and make it
available for download and then say: "But you can't use this without payment
or some other special relationship with the owner...", then it seems kind of
silly to have it on the website at all.

Of course calling a software license "Proprietary" is really kind of an
arbitrary thing. Licenses exist on a kind of sliding scale with "Public
Domain" (unlimited rights) on one end and "Locked up in a vault" (no rights
at all) on the other. GPL is probably off to the left side and a Microsoft
license is off to the right side, but both claim some property rights to the
software and some limited license to use those rights by the end user.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrna67f4p.qd.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Sorry it was my mistake it says Other/Proprietary License.
>

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Marin David Condic]

The policy in the past has been that building a program with GNAT as the
compiler should not, in and of itself, make that program fall under the GPL
or any other license except that of your own choosing. That has been stated
here in one way or another before. I can't think of any reason they would
change that policy. But of course you'd have to check with ACT to get some
sort of "Official" statement to that effect. I doubt they'd try to change
that policy unannounced with 3.14p.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Al Christians" <achrist@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:3C634BAD.AE1448B5@easystreet.com...
>
> If some brain-dead user (say, for example, someone like me) just writes
> and compiles some Ada with gnatmake and gets an execuatable (eg for
> Windows), is he yet (as of 3.14p) pretty safe in figuring that the
> executable falls under the exception? Is there any library code that
> doesn't follow the exception?  Will the answer to this change with the
> new GNAT versions that are more closely integrated with the rest of
> gcc?
>

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Stephen Leake]

Dan Andreatta <andreatta@mail.chem.sc.edu.REMOVEME> writes:

> There are other *good* reasons to prefer savannah. Read:
> http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/announce/2001-November/000028.html

Very interesting. I'll change my recommendation then; let's boycott
SourceForge, and put our projects on Savannah.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Steffen Huber]

Robert Dewar wrote:
[snip]
> Why not put it in source forge with BOTH licenses, you just
> make a header that says that this software is licensed under the GPL
> or the GMGPL, with the user being able to
> choose. That should satisfy both goals.

Good idea.

Your comment has made me thinking again about the licence issue. Does the
GMGPL say anything about the licence that must be used for directly
derived work? GPL or GMGPL?

Steffen

-- 
steffen.huber@gmx.de               steffen@huber-net.de
GCC for RISC OS  - http://www.arcsite.de/hp/gcc/
Private homepage - http://www.huber-net.de/

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Stephen Leake]

Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:

> If some brain-dead user (say, for example, someone like me) just writes 
> and compiles some Ada with gnatmake and gets an execuatable (eg for 
> Windows), is he yet (as of 3.14p) pretty safe in figuring that the 
> executable falls under the exception? 

Yes, that is what the GMGPL is for. If you produce an executable with
GNAT, it is _not_ "contaminated" by the GPL.

> Is there any library code that doesn't follow the exception? 

The intent is that there is not. If you are really concerned, you
should actually check, and consult your lawyer. I'm not sure if being
a GNAT customer would help here, but it probably would. They could
help in assuring that the GMGPL applies to all runtime components.

> Will the answer to this change with the new GNAT versions that are
> more closely integrated with the rest of gcc?

The runtime library that comes with gcc (note that this is _not_ glibc
or newlib), is mostly in libgg2.c (I think). It has wording in its
license that sounds exactly like the GMGPL. So I think you are safe
there.

Remember; I don't speak for ACT or FSF, nor am I qualified to provide
legal advice.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Ted Dennison]

David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<a3votc$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu>...

> You can make a local archive of the CVS - they offer the CVSRoot for
> download. Everything else is more or less replacable.

Agreed; that's the biggie.

-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is
half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:53:18 -0500, Marin David Condic wrote:
> Ahhhh. O.K. Gotcha now.
> 
> So under that heading does Sourceforge mean that the software is Proprietary
> or the license is Proprietary? I'd have to believe the former. But then
> what's the point? If you put source code up on a web site and make it
> available for download and then say: "But you can't use this without payment
> or some other special relationship with the owner...", then it seems kind of
> silly to have it on the website at all.
> 
> Of course calling a software license "Proprietary" is really kind of an
> arbitrary thing. Licenses exist on a kind of sliding scale with "Public
> Domain" (unlimited rights) on one end and "Locked up in a vault" (no rights
> at all) on the other. GPL is probably off to the left side and a Microsoft
> license is off to the right side, but both claim some property rights to the
> software and some limited license to use those rights by the end user.

No it means that the category is Other / Proprietary License as oppsied
to OSI approved license. Propriatary License means a license for Closed
Source programs (if you can call it like that) like Microsoft or Sun or
whoever.

Yes the GPL is Proprietarian in the sense that it requires the code and
derivative code to be in the "public domain". Wheras Microsofts license
is Proprietarian in the sense to keep the code out of the "public domain".
At least this is how I see it. 

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Keith Thompson]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
[...]
> No it means that the category is Other / Proprietary License as oppsied
> to OSI approved license. Propriatary License means a license for Closed
> Source programs (if you can call it like that) like Microsoft or Sun or
> whoever.

Microsoft is a good example, but Sun isn't; some of their software is
now open source (or whatever the appropriate buzzphrase is).

> Yes the GPL is Proprietarian in the sense that it requires the code and
> derivative code to be in the "public domain". Wheras Microsofts license
> is Proprietarian in the sense to keep the code out of the "public domain".
> At least this is how I see it. 

An important quibble: "public domain" means entirely free of copyright
and licensing restrictions.  If a piece of software is public domain,
I can legally make a small change, put my own copyright notice on it,
and sell or license it any way I like -- which of course doesn't
prevent anyone else from distributing the original source freely.

There actually isn't much software that's literally public domain.
Most open source software has some kind of copyright and license
terms.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Georg Bauhaus]

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote:
 
: An important quibble: "public domain" means entirely free of copyright
: and licensing restrictions.

Perhaps one should add that, if this applies, it applies to 
works when the laws of the US of America apply.

- georg
(outside the USA, but not outlaw, afaik)

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Robert Dewar]

Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<u4rktqphk.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>...
> Since the GPL and the LGPL are approved, and the GMGPL is 
> sort of halfway between those

That's a mischaracterization. The GMGPL is much more permissive than
the LGPL, in that it accomodates the instantiation issue (the LGPL
does not), and it does
not require distribution of object files (the LGPL does).
The GMGPL was created *precisely* because the LGPL was
too restrictive (interestingly the original GNAT contract
required the use of the LGPL, but we interpreted this to
mean any license that gave at least these rights and the
contractor agreed).

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[David Starner]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:07:28 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
> Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote:
>  
>: An important quibble: "public domain" means entirely free of copyright
>: and licensing restrictions.
> 
> Perhaps one should add that, if this applies, it applies to 
> works when the laws of the US of America apply.

Huh? Why? If code has been placed in the public domain in the US, it's
probably been placed in the public domain everywhere. There's not much
code that's in the public domain because of obscure US legal reasons.

-- 
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On 09 Feb 2002 16:04:45 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> An important quibble: "public domain" means entirely free of copyright
> and licensing restrictions.  If a piece of software is public domain,

No I mean "for the common good" or what you choose to call it. I'm not
talking about what is called public domain in the computer license
jargon. I mean that the code is available for anybody.

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Georg Bauhaus]

David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote:
: On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:07:28 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
:> Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote:

:> works when the laws of the US of America apply.
: 
: Huh? Why? If code has been placed in the public domain in the US, it's
: probably been placed in the public domain everywhere. There's not much
: code that's in the public domain because of obscure US legal reasons.
 
Everywhere from a US point of view, maybe, I don't know. But over
here, the originator (need to talk about them too) of a work is
always a human beeing and can in a sense be held responsible for
what he or she has created. "Responsibility" has to be defined
but this doesn't change the fact that you have to be careful
here when you talk about your software being in the public domain.
It is not always just the software user who has to think about
consequences of using software according to some or no license
(where applicable) but also the originator. There were/are
days when governments (at least over here) require(d) every
piece of writ to be attributable to some person who could/can
be held liable, indeed you would not have wanted to sign your
pamphlet with a known name in the days of the french revolution,
the public domain was the most illegal place to put a pamphlet
in. These are roots of The Law here, no matter what
it is in the US or elsewhere, no offence intended, and software
authors are probably better of if they take greate care of what
the relevant legal practice implies.

In particular, "entirely free of ... restrictions" is a sentence
that makes sense provided at least that the potential meanings of
"copyright restriction" have been sorted out; this may be
the case in US courts, good. But no such clarity over here,
books about software rights are only slowly creeping onto
bookdealers shelves.

A case: What if a German (say) author derives software from a piece
of software that has been placed in the public domain in the USA?
Will he/she aquire local responsibilities with the software he/she
uses?

(THIS IS NOT, NOT EVEN BY IMPLICATION, LEGAL ADVICE :-)

- georg

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:56:54 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Everywhere from a US point of view, maybe, I don't know. But over
> here, the originator (need to talk about them too) of a work is
> always a human beeing and can in a sense be held responsible for
> what he or she has created. "Responsibility" has to be defined
> but this doesn't change the fact that you have to be careful
> here when you talk about your software being in the public domain.
> It is not always just the software user who has to think about
> consequences of using software according to some or no license
> (where applicable) but also the originator. There were/are
> days when governments (at least over here) require(d) every
> piece of writ to be attributable to some person who could/can
> be held liable, indeed you would not have wanted to sign your
> pamphlet with a known name in the days of the french revolution,
> the public domain was the most illegal place to put a pamphlet
> in. These are roots of The Law here, no matter what
> it is in the US or elsewhere, no offence intended, and software
> authors are probably better of if they take greate care of what
> the relevant legal practice implies.

Which country do you speak of? I'm also European, but I don't recognice
these things. 

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Marin David Condic]

Be careful about the term "public domain" because that means something
different than simply making source code available to the public. "Public
Domain" would mean a work for which the copyright had expired or was
voluntarily surrendered. An example would be the works of Shakespear. (O.K.,
I have not actually checked, but it would be a good bet that there are no
heirs of Shakespear still around renewing copyrights on his works. And I
think there's some maximum number of years a copyright can be renewed
anyway - 99 years? - so its a good bet this stuff has slipped into the
Public Domain. :-)

Anybody is free to make and sell - or give away - copies of Shakespear's
"Hamlet" provided that they make copies from a public domain source. (Once
you put it into a book of your own though, you can have a copyright on that
instance of "Hamlet" so photocopying your book and redistributing it would
be a violation. But that's another story.)

So while source code might be made freely available to the public, that
doesn't necessarily mean that the copyright has been surrendered and that
there may not be conditions on its use & redistribution.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrna6a6n3.q8.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Yes the GPL is Proprietarian in the sense that it requires the code and
> derivative code to be in the "public domain". Wheras Microsofts license
> is Proprietarian in the sense to keep the code out of the "public domain".
> At least this is how I see it.
>

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Georg Bauhaus]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:
 
: Which country do you speak of? I'm also European, but I don't recognice
: these things. 
 
Germany.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Darren New]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Everywhere from a US point of view, maybe, I don't know. But over
> here, the originator (need to talk about them too) of a work is
> always a human beeing and can in a sense be held responsible for
> what he or she has created. "Responsibility" has to be defined
> but this doesn't change the fact that you have to be careful
> here when you talk about your software being in the public domain.

As the OP said, "public domain" means "entirely free of copyright and
licensing restrictions". It doesn't mean "entirely free to use in every
way without anyone having responsibility."  Indeed, many pieces of
software that would otherwise be PD are released under a license that
says basically "you may use this only if you don't sue us." If a country
puts restrictions on a work such that it cannot be entirely free of
copyright and licensing restrictions, then that country is simply saying
that nothing is public domain as far as they're concerned.

Consider - I can put a letter that threatens to assassinate the
president (Hi, FBI!) into the public domain. You may copy it and do with
it whatever you want. That doesn't mean it's legal for me or you to mail
such a thing to the president.

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
  The opposite of always is sometimes.
   The opposite of never is sometimes.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

[ I am not a lawyer, not a native English speaker, so the
  comment below may have to be taken with a grain of salt. ]

David Starner wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:07:28 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:

> > Perhaps one should add that, if this applies, it applies to
> > works when the laws of the US of America apply.
> 
> Huh? Why? If code has been placed in the public domain in the US, it's
> probably been placed in the public domain everywhere. There's not much
> code that's in the public domain because of obscure US legal reasons.

EU copyright law has what is effectively a ban on "public
domain".  The creator of a work will always have copyright
to it (in the sense "the right to have his/her name on the
work and people not changing it without asking him/her") and
this right can not be sold or in any other way given away. 
But laws and similar works are not covered by copyright.

Jacob
-- 
"han skriver det aldrig s� ondt som det er ment"

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Marin David Condic]

Yeah, but what does that mean? You make a post to a newsgroup. I reply to
that post, clipping off various sections - including your name. You get to
sue me for a million Euros because I copied some part of your work and
didn't leave your name on it? Seems kind of impractical to me.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Jacob Sparre Andersen" <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote in message
news:3C68014C.928B8F57@nbi.dk...
>
> EU copyright law has what is effectively a ban on "public
> domain".  The creator of a work will always have copyright
> to it (in the sense "the right to have his/her name on the
> work and people not changing it without asking him/her") and
> this right can not be sold or in any other way given away.
> But laws and similar works are not covered by copyright.
>

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Simon Wright]

David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> writes:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:07:28 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
> > Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote:
> >  
> >: An important quibble: "public domain" means entirely free of copyright
> >: and licensing restrictions.
> > 
> > Perhaps one should add that, if this applies, it applies to 
> > works when the laws of the US of America apply.
> 
> Huh? Why? If code has been placed in the public domain in the US,
> it's probably been placed in the public domain everywhere. There's
> not much code that's in the public domain because of obscure US
> legal reasons.

I was surprised (shouldn't have been, I guess) to find that our (UK)
lawyers seem to place a different meaning on the phrase "public
domain". They say we should not say "(c) XYZ plc 2002" on any document
we are not intending to be used for publicity purposes because it
"places the document in the public domain". I have no idea what this
means to them, IANAL, but there certainly seems to be a difference
between what these guys think and what most of us have come to
understand by the phrase.

This all struck me as so deeply depressing that I didn't chase it
further (of course, that would have required a lot of work exploring
the halls of Moria).

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Keith Thompson]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
> On 09 Feb 2002 16:04:45 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > An important quibble: "public domain" means entirely free of copyright
> > and licensing restrictions.  If a piece of software is public domain,
> 
> No I mean "for the common good" or what you choose to call it. I'm not
> talking about what is called public domain in the computer license
> jargon. I mean that the code is available for anybody.

Then please use a phrase other than "public domain", which has a
specific legal meaning (at least in the US).

If nothing else, using a more accurate term will most likely prevent
me from posting annoying followups like this one.  8-)}

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Robert Dewar]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<a48m3m$qaj$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>
> (some dozens of lines of legal interpretation, not 
>  duplicated here ...)
> (THIS IS NOT, NOT EVEN BY IMPLICATION, LEGAL ADVICE :-)
> 
> - georg


I have a suggestion to people here. I advise against reading anything
in CLA about copyright law. You will have
too much difficulty distinguishing correct information from
entirely incorrect information.

I suggest reading the Berne convention. The US and the 
European countries are all signatories. I will tell you
what has been agreed on wrt copyright issues between the
countries.

(Robert is a bit dubious about this convention, since he
thinks it may violate the US constitution, but until the
courts rule, it is effectively the law of the land here
as well as in Europe :-)

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[David Starner]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:07:35 -0500, Marin David Condic <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[> wrote:
> And I
> think there's some maximum number of years a copyright can be renewed
> anyway - 99 years? - so its a good bet this stuff has slipped into the
> Public Domain. :-)

It's considerably more hairy then that, and no country I know of still
requires copyrights to be renewed, but yes, Shakespear is in the public
domain.
 
> Anybody is free to make and sell - or give away - copies of Shakespear's
> "Hamlet" provided that they make copies from a public domain source. (Once
> you put it into a book of your own though, you can have a copyright on that
> instance of "Hamlet" so photocopying your book and redistributing it would
> be a violation. But that's another story.)

A copyright requires creative work, at least in the US. Just taking a
public domain copy of Hamlet and slapping it onto paper does not
qualify; you'd have to add copyrighted pictures, footnotes or endnotes
to get copyright on it (again, in the US.) If you look at most of the
Penguin Books, or the Dover books (two companies that slap* public domain
text onto paper, mainly for cheap college editions), they claim
copyright on the introduction, but not on the text.

* The negative connotations are well deserved in some cases, as they
don't often bother resetting the text, instead just making a straight
photocopy of an older setting.

-- 
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing 
with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On 11 Feb 2002 13:09:15 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Then please use a phrase other than "public domain", which has a
> specific legal meaning (at least in the US).
> 
> If nothing else, using a more accurate term will most likely prevent
> me from posting annoying followups like this one.  8-)}

Allemannseie. 

Oh? you don't know what it means? How odd. Well I'll give you a clue it
is Norwegian and means "public property" is that better? Probably that
is a legal term in the US too (what isn't).

Preben annoyed
-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On 12 Feb 2002 06:20:39 GMT, David Starner wrote:
> 
> It's considerably more hairy then that, and no country I know of still
> requires copyrights to be renewed, but yes, Shakespear is in the public
> domain.

I thought that after 50-75 years after the death of say an author her/his
copyright expired, but as Dewar says it is best to read up on copyright
laws elsewhere.

> A copyright requires creative work, at least in the US. Just taking a

Many of the software patents doesn't make it look like it needs much
creative work. ;-)

-- 
Preben Randhol         �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <slrna6ht6s.m6a.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
> On 12 Feb 2002 06:20:39 GMT, David Starner wrote:

>> A copyright requires creative work, at least in the US. Just taking a
> 
> Many of the software patents doesn't make it look like it needs much
> creative work. ;-)

Patents, of course, are quite different from copyrights.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Yeah, but what does that mean?  You make a post to a newsgroup. I reply to
> that post, clipping off various sections - including your name. You get to
> sue me for a million Euros because I copied some part of your work and
> didn't leave your name on it?

Suing for millons of euros is not all that common on this
side of the pond.  Your example is not good, since articles
posted to newsgroups are not "public domain" in the USA
either.

Anyway.  The court would probably just ask you to refrain
from repeating your mistake the first time.  If you repeated
the offence, a Danish judge would probably just let you pay
the "costs" of the case (around 4000 euro).

> Seems kind of impractical to me.

Generally rulings in Danish courts regarding this part of
the copyright law are not different from plain illegal
copying.

Jacob
-- 
"han skriver det aldrig s� ondt som det er ment"

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Marin David Condic]

Maybe because it makes the work something accessible to the public? As
opposed to "company private" or "classified" or whatever else you might want
to do to make a work a private matter?

The terminology is certainly confusing. Obviously, one always needs to
consult legal counsel to be sure, but with a newsgroup as international as
this and the subject of copyright and licensing coming up fairly often for
one reason or another, it would help to have a shared understanding of what
was meant when using certain terminology.

"Tower of Babbel", anyone?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
news:x7vg047ls6f.fsf@smaug.pushface.org...
>
> I was surprised (shouldn't have been, I guess) to find that our (UK)
> lawyers seem to place a different meaning on the phrase "public
> domain". They say we should not say "(c) XYZ plc 2002" on any document
> we are not intending to be used for publicity purposes because it
> "places the document in the public domain". I have no idea what this
> means to them, IANAL, but there certainly seems to be a difference
> between what these guys think and what most of us have come to
> understand by the phrase.
>
> This all struck me as so deeply depressing that I didn't chase it
> further (of course, that would have required a lot of work exploring
> the halls of Moria).

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Preben Randhol]

On 12 Feb 2002 05:57:23 -0600, Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> Patents, of course, are quite different from copyrights.

One totally moronic example can be seen here:

   http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991905

Look at: http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html

Preben Randhol

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Georg Bauhaus]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote:
 
: I was surprised (shouldn't have been, I guess) to find that our (UK)
: lawyers seem to place a different meaning on the phrase "public
: domain".

Hmmm... Maybe public houses are not in the public domain either?
I'll withdraw myself to a publike domain now.
cheers
georg

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Keith Thompson]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
> news:x7vg047ls6f.fsf@smaug.pushface.org...
> > I was surprised (shouldn't have been, I guess) to find that our (UK)
> > lawyers seem to place a different meaning on the phrase "public
> > domain". They say we should not say "(c) XYZ plc 2002" on any document
> > we are not intending to be used for publicity purposes because it
> > "places the document in the public domain". I have no idea what this
> > means to them, IANAL, but there certainly seems to be a difference
> > between what these guys think and what most of us have come to
> > understand by the phrase.
[...]

That is surprising.  I had thought that the US and most European
countries followed the Berne Convention for copyrights, so the rules
should be about the same in most places.  I seem to recall that "(c)"
is not a valid copyright indication; you need either the c-in-a-circle
symbol or the word "copyright".  Could that be what you're referring
to?

> Maybe because it makes the work something accessible to the public?
> As opposed to "company private" or "classified" or whatever else you
> might want to do to make a work a private matter?

I think you're talking about a "trade secret".

> The terminology is certainly confusing. Obviously, one always needs to
> consult legal counsel to be sure, but with a newsgroup as international as
> this and the subject of copyright and licensing coming up fairly often for
> one reason or another, it would help to have a shared understanding of what
> was meant when using certain terminology.

Indeed.

Some sources of information about copyright (certainly better than my
own semi-informed ramblings) are:

<http://www.benedict.com/>
<http://fairuse.stanford.edu/library/faq.html>
<http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html>
<http://www.tjc.com/copyright/> (not currently available)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Robert Dewar]

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message news:<yec6651zo2j.fsf@king.cts.com>...

Repeated warning: the amount of plain wrong legal information on
copyright in this thread is so considerable that I would not even
start to try to correct it. I strongly recommend that no one read
anything here with
the assumption that it is even vaguely correct.

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Stephen Leake]

Steffen Huber <steffen.huber@gmx.de> writes:

> Your comment has made me thinking again about the licence issue. Does the
> GMGPL say anything about the licence that must be used for directly
> derived work? GPL or GMGPL?

Yes. Go read it!

Hmm. I couldn't find a direct reference online. Here's the license
part of a header of a file in SAL (which is GMGPL):

-- SAL is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
-- under terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
-- Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
-- later version. SAL is distributed in the hope that it will be
-- useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty
-- of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
-- General Public License for more details. You should have received a
-- copy of the GNU General Public License distributed with SAL; see
-- file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, 59
-- Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
--
-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from
-- SAL, or you link SAL object files with other files to produce
-- an executable, that does not by itself cause the resulting
-- executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This
-- exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the
-- executable file might be covered by the GNU Public License.

The GPL is at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Simon Wright]

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> writes:

> That is surprising.  I had thought that the US and most European
> countries followed the Berne Convention for copyrights, so the rules
> should be about the same in most places.  I seem to recall that
> "(c)" is not a valid copyright indication; you need either the
> c-in-a-circle symbol or the word "copyright".  Could that be what
> you're referring to?

But (again IANAL) (c) or Copyright or whatever is only restating what
is in any case a fact so as to avoid violators' claiming ignorance.

I don't _think_ it was the (c) vs c-in-a-circle ...

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Harri J Haataja]

Steffen Huber wrote:
>I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I told them that the
>licence used is the GMGPL, and they refused to host the project because this
>licence is not an official OSI licence.
>
>So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
>1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?
>2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence -
>    has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first
>    one to try?
>3.) Convince OSI to add the GMGPL as an approved licence - anyone tried
>    that?
>4.) Find another licence which is comparable to the GMGPL, but has another
>    name and is already OSI approved - any ideas?
>
>Comments, suggestions?

I could throw in this:

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html

That chapter discusses licenses and has pretty neat description of those
and hinting on what to choose for a project.
The kess different licenses there are, the easier they are to
understand, categorize etc.


http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html

-- 
I'm broken. Please show this to someone who can fix can fix
	-- A message in a TeX system

Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge

[Stephen Leake]

harri.haataja@cs.helsinki.fi (Harri J Haataja) writes:

> Steffen Huber wrote:
> >I tried to get one of my Ada projects into SourceForge. I told them that the
> >licence used is the GMGPL, and they refused to host the project because this
> >licence is not an official OSI licence.
> >
> >So now I am faced with a few alternatives:
> >1.) Find another host for the project - any ideas?

http://savannah.gnu.org/

> >2.) Convince SourceForge that the GMGPL is actually fine as an open licence -
> >    has anyone already tried that, I can't believe that I am the first
> >    one to try?

There was a thread on this awhile ago. No real conclusion, but
Savannah seems the best answer.

-- 
-- Stephe