Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So whats the verdict? I take it that this is neither DFSG or GPL compatable? It is definitely GPL incompatible, although there may be some disagreement about what causes this. The easiest way to solve this is to dual license it under this license and the GPL. I would also say that it is definitely DFSG free, since the Artistic License is listed in DFSG #10. To respond to Florian's comments directly: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the library is not forbidden. Really? You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself. The only thing that the DFSG requires is to be able to sell the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. This is explicitly allowed in section 5 of the Ada license. On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:21:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works into the Public Domain. You only have to make it Freely Available, which is no worse than what the GPL, for example, requires. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:33:53PM +1000, Brian May wrote: Selling the library is not forbidden. Really? You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself. Allowing a reasonable copying fee but saying that you can't charge for the library itself doesn't, AFAIK, make the license fail DFSG. (The question here was whether this makes it GPL-incompatible.) This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works into the Public Domain. I questioned this, but there was no further discussion. (I'll CC you this reply separately.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
So whats the verdict? I take it that this is neither DFSG or GPL compatable? On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:49:14PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (please CC responses to me thanks; sorry if this has already been raised; I searched the archives but found nothing) Hopefully mail-followups-to should be correct this time... Reasons why it is not DFSG: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 12:14:24PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's unclear to me what falls under 3 and what falls under 4: it seems as if 3 is for all modification and distribution--it mentions executables--and 4 is for distribution of binaries only. However, 4 seems more restrictive than 3; it doesn't have the freely available option. So, I'm a bit confused. Hmm. I see your point. I think the license is unclear. I'm not sure whether the restrictions in Section 4 are in addition to the restrictions in Section 3, or rather Section 4 is an additional option for Section 3. It could be argued either way. Spelling it out would be a good thing. On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the library is not forbidden. Really? You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself. On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:21:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works into the Public Domain. Reasons why it is not GPL compatable: Maybe not. Section 7 says 7 System-level subroutines supplied by you and linked into this Ada library in order to emulate the functionality defined by this Ada library shall not be considered part of this Ada library, but are the equivalent of input as in Paragraph 6, provided these subroutines do not change the library in any way that would cause it to fail the regression tests for the library. This is similar to the operating system exception, except that the vendor of the operating system can't do anything that breaks Ada. For example, the Sun libc has pow() defined. The Ada library might define it's own pow() for small integers that does not give bit-wise identical results to the Sun pow(). If the Sun one is used, it might cause regression tests to fail, meaning that Sun could not distribute the Ada library. The GPL only restricts Sun from distributing libc and the Ada library together. This would count as an additional restriction, and thus not compatible with the GPL. If you have any influence, changing this part to read more like the GPL would be enough to make it compatible. Reasons why the license has silly mistakes: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 03:46:22AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library Should this say distribute modified copies? b) Accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of the Ada library with your modifications. Accompany any non-standard executables with their c) corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly documenting the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on where to get the Standard Version. Should this be: b) Accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of the Ada library with your modifications. c) Accompany any non-standard executables with their corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly documenting the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on where to get the Standard Version. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ACL - The Ada Community License
(in the manual page or equivalent) on where to get the Standard Version. b) Accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of the Ada library with your modifications. Accompany any non-standard executables with their c) corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly documenting the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on where to get the Standard Version. d) Make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder. 5 You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Ada library. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Ada library. You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself. However, you may distribute this Ada library in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Ada library as a product of your own. 6 The scripts and library files supplied as input to or produced as output from the programs of this Ada library do not automatically fall under the copyright of this Ada library, but belong to whomever generated them, and may be sold commercially, and may be aggregated with this Ada library. 7 System-level subroutines supplied by you and linked into this Ada library in order to emulate the functionality defined by this Ada library shall not be considered part of this Ada library, but are the equivalent of input as in Paragraph 6, provided these subroutines do not change the library in any way that would cause it to fail the regression tests for the library. 8 The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 9 THIS ADA LIBRARY IS PROVIDED AS IS AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the copyright line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. Also, be sure to add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. Copyright (C) This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the Ada Community License which comes with this Library. This program 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 Ada Community License for more details. You should have received a copy of the Ada Community License with this library, in the file named Ada Community License or ACL. If not, contact the author of this library for a copy. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (please CC responses to me thanks; sorry if this has already been raised; I searched the archives but found nothing) Any thoughts on this license? Is it DFSG? Yes, I think so. Is it compatable with the GPL? Maybe not. Section 7 says 7 System-level subroutines supplied by you and linked into this Ada library in order to emulate the functionality defined by this Ada library shall not be considered part of this Ada library, but are the equivalent of input as in Paragraph 6, provided these subroutines do not change the library in any way that would cause it to fail the regression tests for the library. This is similar to the operating system exception, except that the vendor of the operating system can't do anything that breaks Ada. For example, the Sun libc has pow() defined. The Ada library might define it's own pow() for small integers that does not give bit-wise identical results to the Sun pow(). If the Sun one is used, it might cause regression tests to fail, meaning that Sun could not distribute the Ada library. The GPL only restricts Sun from distributing libc and the Ada library together. This would count as an additional restriction, and thus not compatible with the GPL. If you have any influence, changing this part to read more like the GPL would be enough to make it compatible. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:49:14PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: If you have any influence, changing this part to read more like the GPL would be enough to make it compatible. I'm curious. This license seems to have other restrictions over the GPL. For example, selling the library itself is forbidden, and the written offer for source allowed by the GPL isn't allowed by this license (= forbidden). Aren't these also incompatibilities? Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for support. The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications ... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in the license, can include shipping and handling. So again, it doesn't seem to preclude any option offered by the GPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications ... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in the license, can include shipping and handling. So again, it doesn't seem to preclude any option offered by the GPL. It's unclear to me what falls under 3 and what falls under 4: it seems as if 3 is for all modification and distribution--it mentions executables--and 4 is for distribution of binaries only. However, 4 seems more restrictive than 3; it doesn't have the freely available option. So, I'm a bit confused. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: The written offer for source code is an allowable option under 3(a) of the Ada license. It say that you must make your modifications ... Freely Available. Freely Available, as defined in the license, can include shipping and handling. So again, it doesn't seem to preclude any option offered by the GPL. It's unclear to me what falls under 3 and what falls under 4: it seems as if 3 is for all modification and distribution--it mentions executables--and 4 is for distribution of binaries only. However, 4 seems more restrictive than 3; it doesn't have the freely available option. So, I'm a bit confused. Hmm. I see your point. I think the license is unclear. I'm not sure whether the restrictions in Section 4 are in addition to the restrictions in Section 3, or rather Section 4 is an additional option for Section 3. It could be argued either way. Spelling it out would be a good thing. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works into the Public Domain.
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Selling the library is not forbidden. Really? You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself.
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:21:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works into the Public Domain. Does it? 3a says you must either put it into the public domain *or* otherwise make them Freely Available; it's extremely loose about that definition. Probably too loose; it's not really clear to me what's allowed and what's not. If I distribute binaries to someone, and include a written offer (GPL-style), is that satisfying 3a? It's freely available to the person I'm giving binaries to, but nobody else. (I'd suspect that if this didn't satisfy 3a, it means they expect you to make the changes publically available if you distribute binaries at all; this would violate the desert-island scenario, which might make it non-free.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for support. This is Debian's interpretation of reasonable copying fee, and why that restriction doesn't cause it to be DFSG-unfree. However, is this also the FSF's interpretation for GPL compatibility? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of reasonable copying fee is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for support. This is Debian's interpretation of reasonable copying fee, and why that restriction doesn't cause it to be DFSG-unfree. However, is this also the FSF's interpretation for GPL compatibility? The FSF thinks that the Clarified Artistic License is compatible. It also has a similar clause which uses the term Distribution Fee. In the license, Distribution Fee is defined as a fee you charge for providing a copy of this Package to another party. It also has the replaced system routines must pass regression tests, so I don't know what the FSF is thinking. I agree that it is a bit fuzzy, which is why the original Artistic License is considered ambiguous. I guess the simplest thing is to have people dual license the library under the GPL. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
