Re: POLL: Would you use Ada more if...

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnalsatm.2g5.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no
 
> Yes, but if the license is the same? :-)

If you download something from the net, it is up to you
to verify that it is properly licensed. You can't just
assume that because something says it is licensed under
the GPL that it is. Three examples:

1. Someone steals microsoft code and puts it on the net
with a GPL notice. That in no way protects you if you
illegally copy it and use it.

2. Someone modifies a version of a standard GPL tool
with non-GPL'ed code, but the tool still looks like it
is GPL'ed. This in no way protects you if you illegally
copy it and use it.

3. Someone puts out a GPL'ed tool, and in good faith
thinks that it is all their own work and they can issue
a valid GPL, but in fact there are copyright or patent
issues. You are compeltely responsible for any difficulties
if you download this.

By comparison if you get software from a company with whom
you have an executed license agreement, then that other
company is taking responsibility for ensuring that the
license is valid, and that they are entitled to issue the
license, and you are protected.

It's quite a big difference. I often find that people do
not realize that when they download something from the net,
they have to take 100% responsibility on themselves for
ensuring that there are no IPR violations.

And to remember again, the appearence of a copyright or
license statement on the artifact itself has no legal
significance, you are not entitled to rely on this information for legal protection.

So back to your original question. The license may or may
not be "the same", but the big difference is that in one
case you take responsibility, in the other case, you sign
a contract with another company and that other company
takes responsibility.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies