pragma License ? - ADA

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.

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 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

> "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

Harald Korneliussen <vintermann@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.

> 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.

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 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 ! ! !


In <1182493841.177772.314860@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Harald Korneliussen <vintermann@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.
>
>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 wrote:

> 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

Bye...

Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

> 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).

> Harald Korneliussen <vintermann@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

>> 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