[gtkada] License question

[Ludovic Brenta]

Stefan Bellon <sbellon at sbellon.de> writes:
>> Having said that, as long as you don't distribute any binaries based
>> on pure gpl and don't attempt to distribute GtkAda and claim the
>> exception applies I would guess you are ok (meaning, I would do
>> something like this myself -- not meaning there is no risk).
>
> Yes. Additionally I think he can release his work under whatever
> license he likes (even dual-licensing it). The people who use his work
> in combination with other work then have to check for incompatibilities
> between different licenses and the implications this may have. But this
> is not the problem of the author, but of the licensees. But IANAL.

That is also my feeling.

>> Realize of course that in providing these libraries as GMGPL, the
>> only people that can exercise the exception clause of the GMGPL for
>> your bindings are customers of AdaCore or people that have older pre
>> GPL minus exception clause versions of GtkAda (Of course we all know
>> that never existed according to many).
>
> I thought up to including version 2.4.x of GtkAda the GMGPL releases
> have been freely available? At least the Debian packages have been
> GMGPL licensed, IIRC.

IANAL but I maintain these packages.  I did ask AdaCore whether or not
the switch to GPL applied to the CVS server (it does) from where I got
GtkAda, and whether the switch was retroactive to version 2.4.0.  No
answer on that last point.  My feeling is that it cannot be
retroactive.  If someone had GtkAda 2.4.0 under GMGPL on a CD-ROM and
got stranded on an island, the GMGPL would remain in effect
indefinitely.

>> For something potentially this coupled to GtkAda, you may want to go 
>> pure GPL for a few reasons
>
>> 1) You can feel better about being less worried about some sort of 
>> license confusion scare with the copyright holder.
>
> I think he could even make a conditional license like "when used
> together with a GPL version of GtkAda, the GPL applies to CairoAda,
> when used together with a GMGPL version of GtkAda, the GMGPL version of
> CairoAda applies". This way there is no confusion at all, but the
> license is always exactly the same like the GtkAda version, thus not
> leaving any way for confusion. But again, IANAL.

I think that's overly complex.  If Damien releases his work under
GMGPL, then the end user's work is automatically subject to the
license of GtkAda, be that GMGPL or GPL.

>> 2) It promotes 'free' software.

Or rather, it hinders non-free software :)

>> 3) Releasing as GMGPL only helps AdaCore customers (since only they
>> can really exercise the right). By releasing bindings as pure GPL
>> that AdaCore may want/need to release a similar products  of in the
>> future you get to create some FUD and confusion about the license
>> and copyright ownership of any of these similar bindings. That seems
>> like a good thing.
>
> This sounds a bit like anti-AdaCore attitude and does not really help.
>
> You can as well look at it from the other point of view: If he released
> the whole of CairoAda under pure GPL (which is not at discussion right
> now, if I understand correctly, but just the Gdk and RSVG part), then
> AdaCore customers were not able to use his work.

I believe this is the crux of the matter and it is this consideration
that should drive the decision.  In other words: are you happy to shun
non-free softare?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.