Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> But we don't complain that makers of Free Software disallow use of
> their GPL tools and components for closed source software. If you
> need that, pay them, if you can.

George, 

I know I'm not consistent, but I'd like to point you to
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/3e26dfa741e64e5f/bbff925a8e74f167?lnk=st&q=Ada+Whalen+Dewar&rnum=4&hl=de#bbff925a8e74f167

which has a rather good exegesis of Steve Whalen on the point wether
GNAT is ACT's to do with it what they want, and also a relevant rather
lengthy Robert Dewar quote. After reading that you'll perhaps
understand that the situation is not as cut and dried as it seems to
you and also why I resent to being portrayed by you in public as
someone just trying to sponge off ACTs God Given Property
(i.e. Gnat). Gnat is not "their tool". They're licensing the code base
under GPL themselves and the original DOD grants as well as the
history of the last decade always imply some obligation to keep Gnat
free, presumably for all users not only in the "free for free software
sense".

So any complaint of mine in the direction that they didn't follow that
obligation any more, would have been fully justified.

My issue actually was elsewhere (since a the FSF compiler is
available) and than got bogged down in lots of (IMHO inappropriate) GPL
philosophy. Nonetheless, thanks for the accusations.

Regards  -- Markus