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-Thread: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... References: <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <449d2a28$0$11075$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <449d5c03$0$11074$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <6sbqsh6jv7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1151319888.917063.38120@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: M E Leypold Date: 26 Jun 2006 14:19:27 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.218.245 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151324001 88.72.218.245 (26 Jun 2006 14:13:21 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5033 Date: 2006-06-26T14:19:27+02:00 List-Id: "Ludovic Brenta" writes: > The only thing the first customer can do to prevent that is to sign a > contract with you, whereby you assign your copyright to him (which as I > understand is not legal in Germany), or you agree not to distribute > your program to anyone else. At this point, the GPL gives the four > freedoms to the (sole) licensee, while at the same time the contract > restricts *your* freedom to redistribute. If I were a customer, I would > systematically insist on such terms when I bought custom-made software. Exactly. Two complications arise: - I don't want to hand over exclusively my container and my widget library :-). - The customer, as I have written, is not sure, wether such a contract with me is binding. After all: I have the source, the libs are under GPL -- doesn't that entitle me to distribute under GPL (a right I cannot waive w/o the GPL lapsing for the libs). So the customer is not sure. "Not sure" in business translates as "risk". Instead of jumping through the hoops to consult a lawyer, who might or might not give a definite answer to that, they decide to go with another offer that looks less fraught with ifs. > > > On can also just deliver mangled code to the customer with stripped > > comments and w/o documentation. One can do all that, but actually it's > > bending the spirit of GPL and obeying the letter only. > > I agree, but as I explained, that's what you would do if you wanted to > prevent your customers from modifying your program. But as I understand > it, that's not the problem you have now; the problem is that your > customer wants to prevent *you* from distributing your programs to > their competitors, right? Only a contract can do that. Can it? And can the customer be convinced that it can? That is where lawyerly territory starts ("Quick, the spell of protection, say it now: 'IANAL, IANAL, IANAL'") and customers feel unwell in that territory as well. Especially for small projects, so they tend to avoid complications of that kind as a general rule. Back to libraries like GtkAda and the posibbly future GPL Florist which are my real issue in all that discussion: I'd prefer a simple and clear cut situation (like a well documented GMGPL) to a number of confusing fringe case and legal workarounds. It doesn't equate to freedom in my book to have to refer to a lawyer all the time. Quite the contrary. Regards -- Markus