pragma License ?
Michael Bode
...); Is this used somewhere in the Adacore universe?
I tried today to compile a package with 'pragma License (Restricted);' in
the package body. The package withs some GtkAda packages. First try
with Gnat 3.15p and the related ancient GtkAda 2.4 package. As
expected there was no warning. Then I tried the same on Debian Etch
with GtkAda 2.8. Again no warning.
What good is an implementation defined pragma, if even said
implementation doesn't use it?
--
No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law.
He simply follows the eleventh commandment.
-- R.A. Heinlein
anon
Note: I like spaces so I know it will generate Style warning if compile
with that option turn on.
--
-- File p.adb
--
package body p is
work : integer := 255 ;
function get_work return integer is
begin
return work ;
end ;
end p ;
--
-- File p.ads
--
pragma License ( GPL ) ;
package p is
function get_work return integer ;
end p ;
--
-- File b.adb
--
package body b is
function add ( f : integer ; s : integer ) return integer is
begin
return ( f + s ) ;
end ;
end b ;
--
-- File b.adb
--
pragma License ( Restricted ) ;
package b is
function add ( f : integer ; s : integer ) return integer ;
end b ;
--
-- c.adb : Main program
--
-- Does not matter which one is uncommented. Either will generate
-- an warning on the other license package. But removing or
-- commenting out both pragma License statement in main
-- program will stop the warning message.
--
--
pragma License ( Restricted ) ;
-- pragma License ( GPL ) ;
with p ;
with b ;
procedure c is
use b ;
x : integer ;
z : integer ;
begin
x := p.get_work ;
z := add ( x, 5 ) ;
end c ;
n <f4rsv5$6g9$1...@online.de>, Michael Bode <m.g....@web.de> writes:
>Gnat has this nice feature called pragma License (unrestriced | GPL
>....); Is this used somewhere in the Adacore universe?
Michael Bode
> Try this example ( 5 files ) :
> Note: I like spaces so I know it will generate Style warning if compile
> with that option turn on.
My question was not if the pragma works but wether it is actually
*used*. This is a Adacore pragma and Adacore distributes their very
same software under different licenses. So I would think it is
reasonable to assume they use it to help avoid breach of license.
anon
programmers that use the Adacore or GNU Ada compiler kind of skip this
pragma.
The reason it was inserted in the language is that Adacore GNAT is
maintain under the GPL licence. And the OSI/FSF group wanted the
"pragma Licence" to be included. So, NYU (GNAT creators) inserted this
pragma back in one of the orginal ADA83 version and will be there in
all future GPL versions. This way, the OSI/FSF can try to enforce the
GPL policy, but since Ada specifications does not enforce this pragma,
neither does Adacore.
Actually all languages that are maintain with the GPL have this type of
feature. But with no Language specification for this feature then no
compile will enforces the usages of this feature. So it kind of a dead
issue unless you want the GNU to maintain or broadcast you progam
package. If you look at GNU c/c++. fortran, or even the GNU
version of java you will see a feature that emulates the
Ada's "pragma License" in that language.
Plus when the OSI/FSF finally updates its GPL to version 3, all of the
sources that use GPL version 2 will have to be update. But the one
that uses this pragma or this type of feature in other languages are
automatically update. Updating source files for those packages that do
not use this feature that is going to be one BIG JOB. Or should I say
headache.
And since, the linker does not verify the "License" of its
files, this also denote that this is the main reason it was inserted.
Plus, using this feature does look more professional. Because the line:
pragma License ( GPL ) ;
is a lot easier to use than to insert the following set of lines
(GNAT version) in each file:
-- GNAT is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Soft- --
-- ware Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later ver- --
-- sion. GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
-- OUT 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 GNAT; see file COPYING. If not, write --
-- to the Free Software Foundation, 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, --
-- Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. --
-- --
-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this --
-- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, --
-- this unit 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. --
-- --
But most progammers just insert the larger set of comments. That way
it spell out what others can do with the source. But these programmer
forget that sometime in the future they may be requested to update this
type of comment. Or have to deal with legal action from the OSI/FSF
groups.
Note: I believe that Linux will create it own license once the GPL version
3 final is out. Linus does not like the GPL version 3 drafts he has seen
so far.
Michael Bode
> All Languages have features that no one uses! I think the primary group of
> programmers that use the Adacore or GNU Ada compiler kind of skip this
> pragma.
If Adacore itself doesn't use it, that's understandable. I won't use
it too. Thought it was a handy feature.
> Note: I believe that Linux will create it own license once the GPL version
> 3 final is out. Linus does not like the GPL version 3 drafts he has seen
> so far.
I thought that's impossible because of the large number of programmers
who hold the copy{right|left} on parts of Linux and who put their code
under GPL2. Linus would have to get permission from all of them to
change the license or replace their code.
Dirk Heinrichs
> Note: I believe that Linux will create it own license once the GPL version
> 3 final is out.
No, why? They will simply keep GPLv2.
Bye...
Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: dirk.he...@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net
anon
pragma ( Restricted ) ;
when I sell the program with source code include, the license is
spelled out in the contract. Else I am lazy and skip the licensing
pragma. Also, any close source code does not need the licensing
comment line.
Note :
Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
What most do not understand about Linux is that Linux is a KERNEL
only. And at the moment version 2.6.xx is about 250Meg+ of source
code for all arch. This is the core software that Linus Torvalds
controls. And without Linux kernel the LINUX OS does not exist.
But the software packages that allows the kernel to be use as an
OS can be use by Linux or other OSes.
And most of the other software packages are govern by the GNU
group which has adopted the OSI/FSF GPL policy 100%. Which
means that all of GNU with be updated. The programmers still have
the copyright but they have given copy/modification rights to the GNU
and its policies. These packages just like GNU GNAT ADA can still be
used under GPL or non-GPL OS like FREEBSD, NETBSD, and OPENBSD
along with Solaris and many different flavors of UNIX. So they do not
need Linux. Linux needs them.
And as for GPL 2 software adopting GPL 3. Once the GPL version 3 is
finalize, the GPL version 2 is no longer legal. If you read GPL 2
there is a paragraph that states you must adopt the updated version
if and when an update is available ( aka version 3 ) or you must
stop using the GPL all together. So if Linus does not fully adopt
GPL 2 then he must write his own License for Linux.
Now there are some that says that the GPL 3 is dead without Linux. And
SUN with Solaris is trying to push Linux to GPL 3. Sun has it reasons
for wanting GPL 3. To find out just google:
Linux GPL 3
Software Politics is kind of boring. To me it takes too long.
Dirk Heinrichs
> Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
That's a different beast. This is used to enforce GPL lincensed kernel
modules. It results in a _runtime_ check. When a module with a
non-compatible license is loaded, it will taint the kernel and you will not
get any support from kernel hackers in case of problems.
> And as for GPL 2 software adopting GPL 3. Once the GPL version 3 is
> finalize, the GPL version 2 is no longer legal.
That's simply wrong.
> If you read GPL 2 there is a paragraph that states you must adopt the
updated version.
No, there's not. Read §9 again, it's the only one that addresses GPL
versions:
" 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation."
> So if Linus does not fully adopt GPL 2 then he must write his own License
> for Linux.
No, he doesn't need to.
> Now there are some that says that the GPL 3 is dead without Linux.
?? There's more free software out there than the Linux kernel.
> And SUN with Solaris is trying to push Linux to GPL 3.
How could Sun/Solaris push a Linux license change???
> Sun has it reasons for wanting GPL 3.
Sure they have. Linus has his reasons to keep GPL2. So what?
Markus E Leypold
>
> Plus, using this feature does look more professional. Because the line:
>
> pragma License ( GPL ) ;
>
> is a lot easier to use than to insert the following set of lines
> (GNAT version) in each file:
>
> -- GNAT is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
<...>
Hardly. I don't think "pragma License ( GPL )" can have any legal
meaning. A clear text notice has, though (all rumours notwithstanding).
Regards -- Markus
Georg Bauhaus
> And as for GPL 2 software adopting GPL 3. Once the GPL version 3 is
> finalize, the GPL version 2 is no longer legal.
NO! Please. I guess you are referring to Section 9.
> If you read GPL 2
> there is a paragraph that states you must adopt the updated version
Nowhere is there a "you must adopt a later license"!
(And besides, only when a whole legal system is overthrown
is there a chance that the basics of what is legal or not
might change.)
anon
>anon wrote:
>
>> Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
>
>That's a different beast. This is used to enforce GPL lincensed kernel
>modules. It results in a _runtime_ check. When a module with a
>non-compatible license is loaded, it will taint the kernel and you will not
>get any support from kernel hackers in case of problems.
>
GNU/AdaCore Ada to add the "pragma License" statement with its
option of "( GPL )". But NYU or Adacore never complete the link to
the _runtine_ checker. which is what I stated in my second reply about
this. First reply, showed source code that tested the "pragma License"
on the GNAT compiler.
Y O U N E E D T O R E A D ! ! !
B E F O R E A N S W E R I N G ! ! !
And for the rest ask a LAYWER. I have testing what I say in court and
I won, The case was based on GPL version 1 to Version 2 policy. They
thought like you that the source would still be under the old GPL version
1 but when OSI/FSF adopted version 2. They had to comply with version
2 and they did not. And it cost them BIG time when the judge made his
desision.
Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to
GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could
go back and write a new Linux license.
E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
S I N C E T H I S G R O U P I S A B O U T A D A
N O T G P L O R O S I / F S F O R E V E N L I N U X ! ! !
Georg Bauhaus
> And for the rest ask a LAYWER. I have testing what I say in court and
> I won, The case was based on GPL version 1 to Version 2 policy. They
> thought like you that the source would still be under the old GPL version
> 1 but when OSI/FSF adopted version 2.
Still no reason to imply in broad terms that every existing contract
about existing GPLed software will become void just because some next
version of some software somewhere is moving to some other license,
for whatever unspecified contract. Legal certainty exists.
Indeed, this is best answered by lawyers and judges and juries (where
they exists) in the respective countries--provided they have a clue
about what copyright, licensing, contracts, international law, etc.
mean.
Dirk Heinrichs
> In <1182160706.208857@xnews001>, Dirk Heinrichs
> <dirk.hein...@nsn.com> writes:
>>anon wrote:
>>
>>> Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>> alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
>>
>>That's a different beast. This is used to enforce GPL lincensed kernel
>>modules. It results in a _runtime_ check. When a module with a
>>non-compatible license is loaded, it will taint the kernel and you will
>>not get any support from kernel hackers in case of problems.
>>
> That's why the OSI/FSF requested the NYU group the creators of the
> GNU/AdaCore Ada to add the "pragma License" statement with its
> option of "( GPL )". But NYU or Adacore never complete the link to
> the _runtine_ checker. which is what I stated in my second reply about
> this. First reply, showed source code that tested the "pragma License"
> on the GNAT compiler.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Ada Compiler vs. Linux Kernel. Compile
time check vs. run time check, both with different purposes in mind.
> Y O U N E E D T O R E A D ! ! !
> B E F O R E A N S W E R I N G ! ! !
And you don't need to shout at me.
> And for the rest ask a LAYWER. I have testing what I say in court and
> I won, The case was based on GPL version 1 to Version 2 policy.
You never talked about version 1 before. What's that now?
> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
> S I N C E T H I S G R O U P I S A B O U T A D A
> N O T G P L O R O S I / F S F O R E V E N L I N U X ! ! !
Again, please don't shout. And remember who brought this Linus/Linux/GPLv3
thing into the thread.
Markus E Leypold
> In <1182160706.208857@xnews001>, Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.hein...@nsn.com> writes:
>>anon wrote:
>>
>>> Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>> alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
>>
>>That's a different beast. This is used to enforce GPL lincensed kernel
>>modules. It results in a _runtime_ check. When a module with a
>>non-compatible license is loaded, it will taint the kernel and you will not
>>get any support from kernel hackers in case of problems.
>>
> That's why the OSI/FSF requested the NYU group the creators of the
> GNU/AdaCore Ada to add the "pragma License" statement with its
> option of "( GPL )". But NYU or Adacore never complete the link to
> the _runtine_ checker. which is what I stated in my second reply about
> this. First reply, showed source code that tested the "pragma License"
> on the GNAT compiler.
>
> Y O U N E E D T O R E A D ! ! !
> B E F O R E A N S W E R I N G ! ! !
Well, a little bit shouting and fidgeting would be nice ...
> And for the rest ask a LAYWER. I have testing what I say in court and
I'm almost sure, the role of "LAWYERS" in 21st century society is
somewhat overestimated in comparison to, say, medical doctors or
electric engineers. If something is about law, people tend to assume
astonishingly early that everything is ununderstandable magic and
"normal" people can't and shouldn't reason about it. In comparison if
it goes about putting a new power line into your garden house, or
repairing an old fridge, almost evryone has an opinion. Nobody shouts:
"You will have to ask AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER". And people like to talk
about all those little symptoms they aquire with old age and what they
might possibly mean and how to soothe them and again (almost) nobody
shouts: "You will have to ask A MEDICAL DOCTOR".
I think you get my point: As an electrical engineer, you shouldn't
advise lay people (at least not strongly) how to build electrical
installations: It would be dangerous. But lay people might struggle to
understand electrical engineering (knowing it can be dangerous). Same
applies to lawyering: A lay person shouldn't advise other people on
legal issues (it's even forbidden in some states) because there is a
certain risk involved that the advise is simply wrong and cost the
client dearly. But still lay people might struggle to understand
law. And they even should.
It would be a really sorry state of affairs of a modern and democratic
state / community, if the laws which govern our public live wouldn't
be understandable at least in principle to the ordinary citizen. Or if
we would be forbidden to discuss the laws and their consequences in
public.
> I won, The case was based on GPL version 1 to Version 2 policy. They
> thought like you that the source would still be under the old GPL version
> 1 but when OSI/FSF adopted version 2. They had to comply with version
> 2 and they did not. And it cost them BIG time when the judge made his
> desision.
Concerning this, you'd have to come out of comfortable
anonymity. Frankly, I don't know about any such case, and doubt you're
presenting it correctly here. Section 9 of the GPL states (quite
explicitely)
9. [...]
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
"any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
published by the Free Software Foundation.
Since "you" in this text is -- quite clearly -- the licensee, he or
she _has_ exactly the choice you seem to deny: To follow either the
original license or the new version, as long as they're dealing with
source they obtained under the old license.
> Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to
> GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could
> go back and write a new Linux license.
I seriously doubt that: Copyright of other people is entangled all
over the source code. So even Linus can't change the license to some
completely different license (w/o consent of a not so well defined
large set of contributors). Parts of the kernel that have the "or
later" clause can be shifted to GPL3, but as I understand it, part of
the problem is, that some parts of the kernel have GPL2 without the
"or later" wording (which is a perfectly valid way to apply the
GPL). Those cannot be shifted to GPL3, which poses a problem since
GPL3 is incompatible to GPL2 (Source:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007053116322326, RMS says:
"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is
no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a
single program.").
> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
Hardly. You are once again proving a source of -- hm, I can't say it
differently -- misinformation or, less kindly, FUD. It would be
necessary to give some evidence or reference to other source to
support your exceptional points of view.
> S I N C E T H I S G R O U P I S A B O U T A D A
> N O T G P L O R O S I / F S F O R E V E N L I N U X ! ! !
BTW: OSI is not FSF, you're mixing something up again.
WRT to OT: The group is about Ada, certainly, but interpretations of
the GPL seem to me on topic, since some of the major Ada compilers
around (the verious GNATs) are licensed under GPL and license issues
often turn up. Same applies to a number of interesting
libraries. Regularly the FSF comes in here: It usually takes around
10-15 post that someone comes along and writes "the FSF wants" and
"the FSF wants not".
As far as Linux goes, that was an example you or some of your sparring
partners brought in, but I'd hate to leave the topic now, after you
dumped a huge load of misinfomation in the thread.
>>" 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
Interesting that you want to leave the topic now, immediately after
someone pointed you to the very same paragraph of the GPL as I did.
(BTW: This was section 7 in GPL 1, just to cover that exit hole too:
Your supposed litigation was around GPL1 and that also has the
same wording)
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
>> In <1182160706.208857@xnews001>, Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.hein...@nsn.com> writes:
>>>anon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux Modules uses : MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>>> alone with some files having the spelled out comment lines too.
>>>
>>>That's a different beast. This is used to enforce GPL lincensed kernel
>>>modules. It results in a _runtime_ check. When a module with a
>>>non-compatible license is loaded, it will taint the kernel and you will not
>>>get any support from kernel hackers in case of problems.
>>>
>> That's why the OSI/FSF requested the NYU group the creators of the
>> GNU/AdaCore Ada to add the "pragma License" statement with its
>> option of "( GPL )". But NYU or Adacore never complete the link to
>> the _runtine_ checker. which is what I stated in my second reply about
>> this. First reply, showed source code that tested the "pragma License"
>> on the GNAT compiler.
>>
>> Y O U N E E D T O R E A D ! ! !
>> B E F O R E A N S W E R I N G ! ! !
>
> Well, a little bit shouting and fidgeting would be nice ...
Insert a 'less' here, please.
- M
Harald Korneliussen
> Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to
> GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could
> go back and write a new Linux license.
>
> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
Sorry, can't let blatant misinformation like that stand. It concerns
Ada insofar GNAT & GPL is so widespread and important.
By now, Linus alone does not hold copyright to the entire kernel. I
believe some contributors assign their rights to him, but some keep
it, and many assign it to the Free Software Foundation instead (there
are many kernel contributors to the "left" of Linus on free software
issues). The FSF would never agree to a license change, except to
GPL3. GPL2 does not force you to upgrade to GPL3 but it permits it
("at your option, any later version"). This means anyone is free to
ship the entire kernel under GPL3, although you could still get it
under the old licence from Linus and others.
However, if a party redistributes or modifies a GPL3-version of the
source, rather than a GPL2-version, perhaps by accident, they will be
in trouble, if you think that limited opportunity to sue your users
for software patent infringement is trouble.
anon
for Linux if GPL version 3 is adopted. That cause Dirk call me a lier and
I tried to correct him. I think he is a trouble maker. The problem is that
some can not read a comment and will not let it stand they want to fight. I
few sad for them!
Other than my comment every thing I said can be found on a number of
web sites around the world ( google search). And until Linus created
Linux version 0.12 all previous version were under License written by
Linus. That means Linux version 0.11 was not under GPL version 1 or
2. All code was donated to Linux. And if Linus does not use GPL
version 3 he will have to adopt another or write a new license.
Also the US legal system will not all two version of the GPL. Contract
law stated that once the new version has be adopted the previous version
is no longer enforceable. An example is a will, update a will then the old
version is no longer valid. Because this is federal law it does not need to
be included in the license itself.
As for contributors, some want the GPL version 3, some do not. We will
have to see what happens. But most will go along with what ever Linus
decides to do, because most want Linux to continue to LIVE.
As for GNAT Ada. Well at the movment there are 3 version. The top of
the line is the Gnat Pro, which is under the Adacore license, and it is
not GPL. Then the Adacore GPL version which is at the movement
is under GPL 2. Unsure what Adacore is going to do about the GPL
version if the GPL version 3 is adopted. We will just have to wait and
see. And the third version is GNU Ada which is under the GPL version 2
for now. If version 3 is adopted the GNU Ada will be updated to license
GPL version 3. The only different will be that Adacore will be replace as
the main maintainer if Adacore decides to do not to update the GPL Ada
to version 3.
E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
L E T T H I S D I E ! ! !
Dirk Heinrichs
> I started this by my comment that I think Linus will write a new License
> for Linux if GPL version 3 is adopted. That cause Dirk call me a lier and
I called nobody a lier. I just questioned your statement about Linus
creating a new license.
> I tried to correct him.
Nothing else did I. But I didn't shout.
> I think he is a trouble maker.
Correcting false statements is making trouble? Says the one who hides behind
a pseudo name.
> The problem is
> that some can not read a comment and will not let it stand they want to
> fight.
Again: I just corrected false statements, like some others did too
> I few sad for them!
Oh boy.
> And if Linus does not use GPL
> version 3 he will have to adopt another or write a new license.
Why do you still insist on this after 3 other people told you this is wrong?
> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
> L E T T H I S D I E ! ! !
Yes, and:
\|||/
(o o)
|~~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~|
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| TROLL! |
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ooo~~'
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo
Ludovic Brenta
> anon wrote:
>> Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to
>> GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could
>> go back and write a new Linux license.
>>
>> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
>
> Sorry, can't let blatant misinformation like that stand. It concerns
> Ada insofar GNAT & GPL is so widespread and important.
>
> By now, Linus alone does not hold copyright to the entire kernel. I
> believe some contributors assign their rights to him, but some keep
> it, and many assign it to the Free Software Foundation instead (there
> are many kernel contributors to the "left" of Linus on free software
> issues). The FSF would never agree to a license change, except to
> GPL3. GPL2 does not force you to upgrade to GPL3 but it permits it
> ("at your option, any later version"). This means anyone is free to
> ship the entire kernel under GPL3, although you could still get it
> under the old licence from Linus and others.
Linux is licensed under GPL v2 only, NOT "any later version". That's
actually the crux of why a move to GPLv3 would require agreement from
all copyright holders.
> However, if a party redistributes or modifies a GPL3-version of the
> source, rather than a GPL2-version, perhaps by accident, they will be
> in trouble, if you think that limited opportunity to sue your users
> for software patent infringement is trouble.
They will be in trouble for violating copyright law, too.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Georg Bauhaus
> anon wrote:
>
>> L E T T H I S D I E ! ! !
>
> Yes, and:
>
> \|||/
> (o o)
> |~~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~|
> | Please |
> | don't feed the |
> | TROLL! |
> '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ooo~~'
> |__|__|
> || ||
> ooO Ooo
Considering that Redmond trolls make a living by spreading
FUD, the c.l.ada archives should have enough information to guide
inquiries to the right places, though.
Georg Bauhaus
>
> Other than my comment every thing I said can be found on a number of
> web sites around the world ( google search).
Is Google your source for legal information?
> Also the US legal system will not all two version of the GPL.
It will be helpful if you refer your readers to references
that they can check. Given the sentence quoted above, and
the fact that you equate a will to licensing plus negotiable business
contracts between specific parties, I think readers will be
considering your claims with some doubt.
> As for GNAT Ada. Well at the movment there are 3 version. The top of
> the line is the Gnat Pro, which is under the Adacore license, and it is
> not GPL.
Do you have an AdaCore contract? Many here who have had the
pleasure of working with an AdaCore supported edition have
stated that even the Pro edition of GNAT is GPLed. IIRC, one
(Mac?) edition has actually become the starting point for a
publicly available edition of GNAT (5.01w?). It has carried
the GPL notice (that doesn't replace a contract, but anyway).
Michael Bode
> Do you have an AdaCore contract? Many here who have had the
> pleasure of working with an AdaCore supported edition have
> stated that even the Pro edition of GNAT is GPLed.
Really? I thought the Pro Version was GMGPL.
Georg Bauhaus
> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus...@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
>
>> Do you have an AdaCore contract? Many here who have had the
>> pleasure of working with an AdaCore supported edition have
>> stated that even the Pro edition of GNAT is GPLed.
>
> Really? I thought the Pro Version was GMGPL.
>
Well, yes. "GM" stands for an exception applying to GPLed software.
In this sense the "GM" part doesn _change_ the license
text, though of course it does permit using of the software
in programs that don't use a GPL compatible license.
(The fact that GMGPL is just GPL with exception becomes noticeable
when you start making changes to GMGPLed software: the exception
applies to instance of the software as given to you, not as
changed by you.)
Michael Bode
> Well, yes. "GM" stands for an exception applying to GPLed software.
> In this sense the "GM" part doesn _change_ the license
> text, though of course it does permit using of the software
> in programs that don't use a GPL compatible license.
And this is something the GPL wants to prevent.
> (The fact that GMGPL is just GPL with exception becomes noticeable
> when you start making changes to GMGPLed software: the exception
> applies to instance of the software as given to you, not as
> changed by you.)
I think it's an interesting question if the GMGPL is 'just GPL with
exeption' or a different license like e.g. LGPL.
There were statements from Adacore saying their license never changed
when in reality they changed it from GMGPL to GPL (for software from
the libre site). If GMGPL is 'just GPL with exception' then 'the
license never changed' is an interpretation that is compatible with
reality, otherwise it isn't.
Markus E Leypold
> anon wrote:
>> Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to
>> GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could
>> go back and write a new Linux license.
>>
>> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
>
> Sorry, can't let blatant misinformation like that stand. It concerns
> Ada insofar GNAT & GPL is so widespread and important.
Good to see that I'm not the only one disturbed by this.
> By now, Linus alone does not hold copyright to the entire kernel. I
> believe some contributors assign their rights to him, but some keep
> it, and many assign it to the Free Software Foundation instead (there
> are many kernel contributors to the "left" of Linus on free software
> issues). The FSF would never agree to a license change, except to
> GPL3. GPL2 does not force you to upgrade to GPL3 but it permits it
> ("at your option, any later version"). This means anyone is free to
> ship the entire kernel under GPL3, although you could still get it
> under the old licence from Linus and others.
I heard that some parts of the Kernel have a GPL (2.0?) w/o the "or
any later version" clause. Those would have to be replaced, at
least. I didn't do extensive research on this, though: The situation
might already have changed in the last years.
> However, if a party redistributes or modifies a GPL3-version of the
> source, rather than a GPL2-version, perhaps by accident, they will be
> in trouble, if you think that limited opportunity to sue your users
> for software patent infringement is trouble.
"Trouble" only ensues from redistribution to a third party. Internal
use of GPL code is AFAIK completely unrestricted. There is no need for
redistribution.
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
> "Trouble" only ensues from redistribution to a third party. Internal
> use of GPL code is AFAIK completely unrestricted. There is no need for
> redistribution.
Sorry. "Restricted" is probably not the right word. What I wanted to
express was "not subject to conditions" -- unconditional?
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
> As for GNAT Ada. Well at the movment there are 3 version. The top of
> the line is the Gnat Pro, which is under the Adacore license, and it is
You really should read up on licensing. Gnat PRO is not "under the
Adacore license", but under GPL. AFAI understand it's only that
AdaCore won't talk to you any more if -- as a supported customer --
you redistribute the version you got from them. Since paying customers
basically pay for support that would be defeating one's purpose in
"buying a license" in the first place. (Buying a license? That should
rather be "buying a support contract", probably).
As I understand it, AdaCore doesn't even _own_ large parts of the code
base (in the copy right sense). The GCC parts belong to the FSF (so
they will stay GPL) and a number of libraries as well.
(I admit I'm not sure about the licensing status of the new runtime).
> not GPL. Then the Adacore GPL version which is at the movement
> is under GPL 2. Unsure what Adacore is going to do about the GPL
> version if the GPL version 3 is adopted. We will just have to wait and
AdaCore maintains its code in the gcc source tree. They'll have to go
with the license for gcc.
> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
> L E T T H I S D I E ! ! !
I know I shouldn't feed you, but on the other side I'm disinclined to
let the misinformation you spread stand unchallenged. We're not
talking about "opinions" here, but about facts -- which you distort in
public and then want to let them stand without response. That won't wash.
To a certain extent I think I (and hopefully others) owe it to
posteriority, not to let FUD of that size stand unmarked. The c.l.a.
archives are supposed to be a source where people expect to find
useful information. The licensing question is discussed approximately
twice every year (and you could have researched that befor posting)
and it's not simple. I'd hate the thought that anybody took your
posting(s) at plain face value.
Regards -- Markus (who is fed up with licensing questions, but still thinks that facts count).
Markus E Leypold
>> However, if a party redistributes or modifies a GPL3-version of the
>> source, rather than a GPL2-version, perhaps by accident, they will be
>> in trouble, if you think that limited opportunity to sue your users
>> for software patent infringement is trouble.
>
> They will be in trouble for violating copyright law, too.
Not from modification alone.
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
> Harald Korneliussen <vinte...@gmail.com> writes:
>> anon wrote:
>>> Also Linux was first written under Linus own license then moved to
>>> GPL because it did not allow commercial redistribution. So Linus could
>>> go back and write a new Linux license.
>>>
>>> E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! !
>>
>> Sorry, can't let blatant misinformation like that stand. It concerns
>> Ada insofar GNAT & GPL is so widespread and important.
>>
>> By now, Linus alone does not hold copyright to the entire kernel. I
>> believe some contributors assign their rights to him, but some keep
>> it, and many assign it to the Free Software Foundation instead (there
>> are many kernel contributors to the "left" of Linus on free software
>> issues). The FSF would never agree to a license change, except to
>> GPL3. GPL2 does not force you to upgrade to GPL3 but it permits it
>> ("at your option, any later version"). This means anyone is free to
>> ship the entire kernel under GPL3, although you could still get it
>> under the old licence from Linus and others.
>
> Linux is licensed under GPL v2 only, NOT "any later version". That's
> actually the crux of why a move to GPLv3 would require agreement from
> all copyright holders.
AFAIK that 'NOT "any later version"' applies only to some of the
files. The situation is aggrevated by the incompatibility of GPL3 with
GPL2 -- it will prevent parts of the kernel going to GPL3 while the
other parts retain GPL2.
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
I'm not sure this is a Redmond troll. Live isn't as simple as
this. It's certainly someone with a grudge (and he even pretends that
he has written GPL software and sued somebody about not keeping to the
GPL license condition -- I'm surprised, this certainly did not leave a
blip on _my_ RADAR screen).
But certainly anon is living in another reality than the rest if us.
Concerning "c.l.ada archives should have enough information to guide
inquiries" I'm not so sure: The discussion on licensing topics has
been somewhat largish and muddled at times (and you and me aren't
altogether free of guilt in that since we mixed politics ("how should
things be, what is the intention" -- remember those discussions on
what the FSF wants?) with the letter of the license ("what written and
what would it mean if one had to go to court").
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
> anon wrote:
>> Also the US legal system will not all two version of the GPL.
>
> It will be helpful if you refer your readers to references
> that they can check. Given the sentence quoted above, and
> the fact that you equate a will to licensing plus negotiable business
> contracts between specific parties, I think readers will be
> considering your claims with some doubt.
>
>
>> As for GNAT Ada. Well at the movment there are 3 version. The top
>> of the line is the Gnat Pro, which is under the Adacore license, and
>> it is not GPL.
>
> Do you have an AdaCore contract? Many here who have had the
> pleasure of working with an AdaCore supported edition have
> stated that even the Pro edition of GNAT is GPLed. IIRC, one
And as far as I can say there is no way for it to be otherwise: GNAT
is build on gcc and gcc is GPL. No way to license GNAT under a
different license, even for AdaCore, since they don't own large parts
of the codebase.
The confusion is perhaps that they own the new runtime completely and
can license it with a linking exception with the Pro version whereas
they don't license the linking exception for the GPL version. I don't
know for sure though, wether they really do that.
> (Mac?) edition has actually become the starting point for a
> publicly available edition of GNAT (5.01w?). It has carried
> the GPL notice (that doesn't replace a contract, but anyway).
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus...@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
>
>> Do you have an AdaCore contract? Many here who have had the
>> pleasure of working with an AdaCore supported edition have
>> stated that even the Pro edition of GNAT is GPLed.
>
> Really? I thought the Pro Version was GMGPL.
Well, yes, probably. But not "the AdaCore license", certainly. And
AFAIR the GM was only for the runtime anyway and is the only place
where it matters.
Regards -- Markus
Markus E Leypold
> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus...@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
>
>> Well, yes. "GM" stands for an exception applying to GPLed software.
>> In this sense the "GM" part doesn _change_ the license
>> text, though of course it does permit using of the software
>> in programs that don't use a GPL compatible license.
>
> And this is something the GPL wants to prevent.
Yes and no. Derived works are still under GPL, but the GM tries (in my
opinion justified) to fix the problem that a compiled program in a
language (Ada) becomes suddenly a derived work because it links again
the run-time (which is after all an implementation detail in the
compiler wether I _generate_ code as needed or link to a library).
Some people (like me) would even argue, that linking a run time
against a program simply doesn't make it a derived work -- at least
that is how I understand german copyright law. A derived work would
be, say, a different compiler, but in german copyright there exists
the concept of "freie Bearbeitung" which applies when
"Eine so genannte freie Bearbeitung liegt vor, wenn der Eindruck des
Originals gegenüber demjenigen der neuen Werke
verblasst. In diesem Fall lässt das Urheberrecht eine
Nutzung unabhängig vom Einverständnis des Schöpfers des
Ausgangswerkes zu."
(The impression of the original (in the derived work) pales against
the new work). Usually that's applied to using elements or quotes from
somebody elses work in yours (like in a collage). But my Ada program
doesn't even do something similar to the Ada compiler. So I'd guess it
falls under "freie bearbeitung" in german copyright law.
Not that I'm really interested to subvert the GPL. But I certainly
dislike business models that rely on "contamination by linking" to
fuel / enforce a dual licensing scheme for users of a work (not
redistributor, note the difference).
>> (The fact that GMGPL is just GPL with exception becomes noticeable
>> when you start making changes to GMGPLed software: the exception
>> applies to instance of the software as given to you, not as
>> changed by you.)
>
> I think it's an interesting question if the GMGPL is 'just GPL with
> exeption' or a different license like e.g. LGPL.
Oh no. Not that again! :-).
> There were statements from Adacore saying their license never changed
> when in reality they changed it from GMGPL to GPL (for software from
> the libre site).
Yes. They had a some difficulties to percieve that there ever was a
linking exception and that the text at the web site suddenly stopped
mentioning it. Interesting enough, some weeks after that performance
they started to distribute source from which the linking exception had
be stripped ecxplicitely (that was GNAT GPL 2006 and accompanying
libraries). Strange that they stripped something that "was never
there", "never changed" and/or "had no meaning".
> If GMGPL is 'just GPL with exception' then 'the license never
> changed' is an interpretation that is compatible with reality,
> otherwise it isn't.
GPL allows excpetions and - I hear -- allows any redistributor to drop
them. So, I think, GMGPL is some kind of GPL and dropping the
exception would have been OK, according to the letter. GPL3 doesn't
fix that problem ("hey we only become freer when linking exceptions
are dropped")
Just let's hope, SUSE/Novel and others never discover that as business
model: "Our Glibc is pure GPL. If you want to have an LGPL Glibc you
need to buy the enterprise edition which costs many $$$$$'s". That
would certainly f*** the free software movement, but would hardly
provoke an outcry from the consumers / users: "I can't program, so
what?".
Regards -- Markus