From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9591:: with SMTP id x139-v6mr13875641iod.106.1525370288490; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5191:: with SMTP id y17-v6mr1720243otg.12.1525370288338; Thu, 03 May 2018 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!f199-v6no828147itd.0!news-out.google.com!b185-v6ni1072itb.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no829800itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com> <2653d61a-c271-40de-833a-02f5408b3045@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <26e9c302-70c7-42c6-9abf-f843c44c54d6@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: How to get Ada to ?cross the chasm?? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 17:58:08 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51941 Date: 2018-05-03T10:58:08-07:00 List-Id: On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 12:00:20 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote: > Not actually copyright, since (judging by the 2017 CE) it's assigned to > the FSF anyway. It's a licencing issue. Yes, narrowly speaking, the license itself as a document (with 2 parties ex= changing valuable consideration in exchange for agreed-upon terms) is evoca= tion of contract law. But, the contract in GPLv3 to copy/distribute those = files or derivative works thereof (e.g., merged source code; object code; e= xecutables) has no legal basis other than in copyright laws' rights to copy= . So in the end, there is not one scintilla of license other than predicat= ed entirely on copyright law in the GPL*; even the patent topics in GPLv3 a= re tied directly to rights to copy under copyright law. (If you refuse to = copy GPLv3 works & derived works, then you don't need to obey the patent te= rms in the license because you chose to not evoke the stated rights to copy= under copyright law in the license by not using/copying the GPLed software= in the first place.) * At least in proprietary EULAs, some money is (typically) exchanged, which= brings in at least one other body of law: commerce law. GPL lacks that o= vert purchase of the rights in the EULA, so rights in monetary-based commer= cial transactions via, say, the Uniform Commercial Code would be impractica= l to evoke regarding the GPL, since the GPL is not predicated on end users = purchasing their rights (as typically occurs in EULAs). The GPL grants rig= hts for gratis predicated only on strict obedience to the contract, where u= sing/deriving from the GPLed works is itself the valuable consideration to = remind the user/copier to continue complying with the terms of the contract= . [I am speaking from the perspective of conservative law (e.g., Texas) as la= rgely derived from pre-1776 British Common Law. Some other systems of law = (e.g., Napoleonic civil law in portions of Europe & colonial derivatives th= ereof; communist in PRChina and Vietnam) likely are not as compartmentalize= d.]