Re: Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status of GtkAda 2.4.0

=?windows-1252?Q?Bj=F6rn_Persson?= <spam-away@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

The answers I have managed to get from Adacore are quite different from
what Ludovic and Markus have reported. These answers are far from crystal
clear, but the best way I can interpret them is as follows:

· There is *not* a policy that license statements in files headers and
readme files shouldn't be believed.
· Their licensing policy hasn't changed in any significant way. (Yeah
right!)
· They think all the license statements in the packages accurately reflect
the license you get.

This sounds far better than anything else I've heard here.

When you download the libraries bundled with Gnat GPL, you get a pure
GPL for the whole bundle.

Ok.

As for what license you get when you download a library separately: No
comment.

They could really be a bit clearer in this section.

[Quote from email answer from Adacore staffer] (I hope no one thinks
this is quoted out of context)

People are allowed to say whatever they like on c.l.a, nothing we can do
about this. That may have been a reference to a discussion about the
legal value of copyright statements appearing at the top of source files
that you download over internet in general. I am not a lawyer, not
even an expert myself so I won't make any comment on that specific issue
but there is nothing specific nor different about the libre site in that
respect.

So if it works for other FOSS projects (license-in-header) it works for
Adacore too. Good.

[Quote from 2nd email answer from Adacore staffer]
(I hope no one thinks this is quoted out of context)

I am not implying anything. I am just stating that our policy has not
changed in any significant way: the Libre site has always been dedicated
to Free software developers and has always been advertised this way very
clearly. It has always been AdaCore's position that anything coming from
the libre site was not suitable for non-Libre development. This is why
the site was named that way and why the landing page takes some real
estate for explaining this. We will consider clarifying yet more.

What Libre site are we talking about? Does "has not changed in any
significant way" imply "since we opened libre2..."? Quote from
http://web.archive.org/web/20050330084052/http://libre.act-europe.fr/
(old Libre site):

The tools and software that you can download from this site are
intended for developers of Libre Software, students, teachers and
hobbyists. If you are planning to develop software in a commercial
setting (as Libre Software or otherwise) services are available to
save you time and company money. Contact sales@xxxxxxxxxxxx

So commercial developers can save time and money if they buy a service
contract. That's reasonable. It's not at all clear that they *have* to
do that to develop CSS at all.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050203211706/libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/

This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified
so that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The
license is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should
also read the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary
software based on gtk and GtkAda.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050208062827/libre.act-europe.fr/xmlada/

This library is released under the standard GNAT Modified GNU Public
License (GMGPL). As usual, it is provided as is, without any
guarantee or support. We do not recommend using of this package in a
commercial application. If you are interested in using a supported
version of this library suitable for commercial applications, please
contact sales@xxxxxxxxxxx

If nothing has changed since then, fine.

(Of course technically speaking web.archive.org is also only rumor)

If someone from Adacore reads this and it is not too much an effort,
any private or official comments are welcome.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wasting our Freedom
    ... Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. ... removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put ... You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. ... between GPL and BSD developers. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Wasting our Freedom
    ... removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put ... not accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send ... You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. ... It's known that the patches are bad, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [Ann] ICE License Copy Protection for Delphi 2005 released !
    ... >> IONWORX Tech. annonce ICE License v2.0 for Delphi 2005 has been released! ... >> encryption to provide a strong protection, ... >> · Sophisticated Asymmetric Encryption Technology ...
    (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)
  • Election predictions: the modern Google way
    ... Having just read the book "55 ways to have fun with Google", ... "Get rich quick" then hit search ... Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 License ... · to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work ...
    (talk.politics.libertarian)
  • Re: [PHP] Requested PHP apps / sites
    ... Something open and non-contractual in the spirit ... existing user-management framework (allowed by license) or write your ... So instead of free code from me or other developers, ... Except I was hoping that the end users of the app or site would be the think tank, ...
    (php.general)