License question

[Damien Carbonne]

Hi,

I have a question about license related to GtkAda.
If this is not the right list to ask this question, does any of you know
to which list I could ask it ?

The problem is:

Last year I developed an Ada binding for Cairo (CairoAda) for which I
used GMGPL license (it only depends on Cairo).
See : http://damien.carbonne.free.fr/download/

I also developed two small bindings, one for Gdk.Cairo and one for RSVG.
I used GPL license for those two bindings because they depend on GtkAda
of which I have only a GPL version.
Am I allowed to release them under two licenses (GPL + GMGPL), so that
people can use the license that fits their GtkAda license ?
- On one side people that use the GPL version of GtkAda would use the
GPL versions of Gdk.Cairo and RSVG.
- On the other side people that use the GMGPL version of GtkAda (AdaCore
customers ?) could use the GMGPL versions of those two bindings.

Or can I simply release those two small bindings under GMGPL, with a
special notice for people that use GPL version of GtkAda ?

Thanks for help.


Regards

Damien Carbonne


_______________________________________________
gtkada mailing list
gtkada@...
http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada

[Jeff Creem]

Damien Carbonne wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a question about license related to GtkAda.
> If this is not the right list to ask this question, does any of you know
> to which list I could ask it ?
>
> The problem is:
>
> Last year I developed an Ada binding for Cairo (CairoAda) for which I
> used GMGPL license (it only depends on Cairo).
> See : http://damien.carbonne.free.fr/download/
>
> I also developed two small bindings, one for Gdk.Cairo and one for RSVG.
> I used GPL license for those two bindings because they depend on GtkAda
> of which I have only a GPL version.
> Am I allowed to release them under two licenses (GPL + GMGPL), so that
> people can use the license that fits their GtkAda license ?
> - On one side people that use the GPL version of GtkAda would use the
> GPL versions of Gdk.Cairo and RSVG.
> - On the other side people that use the GMGPL version of GtkAda (AdaCore
> customers ?) could use the GMGPL versions of those two bindings.
>
> Or can I simply release those two small bindings under GMGPL, with a
> special notice for people that use GPL version of GtkAda ?
>
> Thanks for help.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Damien Carbonne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtkada mailing list
> gtkada@...
> http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada
>
>  

The best answer you will get is that you should ask a lawyer but it is
really not practical for single developers to do that and so no matter
what you do as a free software developer (or as a  human for that
matter) you are always at risk of some sort of legal action no matter
how hard you try.

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).

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).

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.
2) It promotes '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.
_______________________________________________
gtkada mailing list
gtkada@...
http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada

[Stefan Bellon]

Hi!

First of all I should note that it was me who asked Damien that
licensing question, so my comments here may be biased. ;-)

Jeff Creem wrote:

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 2) It promotes '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.

Greetings,
Stefan

--
Stefan Bellon
_______________________________________________
gtkada mailing list
gtkada@...
http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada

[Ludovic Brenta-2]

Stefan Bellon <sbellon@...> 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.

_______________________________________________
gtkada mailing list
gtkada@...
http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada

[Jeff Creem]

Stefan Bellon wrote:

>
>  
>> 2) It promotes '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

It is not anti AdaCore any more than their decision to change the
license on the publicly available version from GMGPL to GPL was anti non
'free' SW purist developer. (And to be clear, as I stated in the past,
they were/are well within their rights to do what they did). The dual
license model they selected is based on a business decision and AdaCore
has every right (and if publicly traded, responsibility) to maximize
profit in an ethical manner and certainly the license change is ethical.

I am just pointing out that as a developer from the outside when acting
in a role that is not as an AdaCore customer, if the current license
situation of freely available AdaCore software is not to your liking
then putting yourself in a position where you feel as if you are
exposing yourself to legal risk (whether you are or are not actually
doing so) only to help AdaCore does not really make a lot of sense. In
the end of course because AdaCore gives so much more to the community
than we give back it is is really an empty gesture....but it is a
reasonable option.


_______________________________________________
gtkada mailing list
gtkada@...
http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada

[Damien Carbonne]

Thanks to all of you for answers.

I think I should ask AdaCore directly !
It seems that current license is OK for Stefan that does not need to use
Gdk.Cairo or RSVG.
I noticed that gtkada_contributions, made by Dmitry A. Kazakov (and
others ?) is licensed under
GMGPL. So it seems it is possible to do this, but here again, I don't
know the legal implications.

Thanks again

Jeff Creem a écrit :

> Stefan Bellon wrote:
>  
>>  
>>    
>>> 2) It promotes '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
>>    
>
> It is not anti AdaCore any more than their decision to change the
> license on the publicly available version from GMGPL to GPL was anti non
> 'free' SW purist developer. (And to be clear, as I stated in the past,
> they were/are well within their rights to do what they did). The dual
> license model they selected is based on a business decision and AdaCore
> has every right (and if publicly traded, responsibility) to maximize
> profit in an ethical manner and certainly the license change is ethical.
>
> I am just pointing out that as a developer from the outside when acting
> in a role that is not as an AdaCore customer, if the current license
> situation of freely available AdaCore software is not to your liking
> then putting yourself in a position where you feel as if you are
> exposing yourself to legal risk (whether you are or are not actually
> doing so) only to help AdaCore does not really make a lot of sense. In
> the end of course because AdaCore gives so much more to the community
> than we give back it is is really an empty gesture....but it is a
> reasonable option.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtkada mailing list
> gtkada@...
> http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
gtkada mailing list
gtkada@...
http://lists.adacore.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkada