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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.50.253.196 with SMTP id ac4mr16912400igd.7.1424792952680; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:49:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.224.232 with SMTP id rf8mr97282obc.12.1424792952320; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:49:12 -0800 (PST) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!hl2no27620718igb.0!news-out.google.com!db6ni33633igc.0!nntp.google.com!hl2no21240339igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:49:12 -0800 (PST) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=74.203.194.21; posting-account=bXcJoAoAAAAWI5APBG37o4XwnD4kTuQQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.203.194.21 User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0414d9e6-9303-4c91-9cb2-313427c1193b@googlegroups.com> Subject: GNAT runtime licensing mess From: Patrick Noffke Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:49:12 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:192323 Date: 2015-02-24T07:49:12-08:00 List-Id: This is prompted after I received a quote from AdaCore for the "safety-crit= ical" GNAT development tools and runtime. Let me preface this by saying I = have great respect for AdaCore and I want them to continue to be successful= . But, to summarize, I think they ought to focus on selling support and to= ols, not messing with the runtime license. I noticed many source files in the GNAT-GPL runtime (gnat-gpl-2014-47 for A= RM-ELF) differ only from the FSF version (specifically libgnat-devel-4.9.2-= 6.fc21.x86_64 on Fedora 21) by omitting this clause in the comment header o= f the GNAT-GPL version of the file: -- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted= -- -- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, = -- -- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. = -- This got me thinking -- who are AdaCore to choose whether or not to include= this clause? Some files are copyrighted by AdaCore, some by the FSF, and = some older copyrights by Universidad Politecnica de Madrid and The European= Space Agency. In addition, some files credit the GNAT team at New York Un= iversity and some of the GNARL files credit the GNARL team at Florida State= University as well as the Technical University of Madrid. Some files in the zfp-support-gpl-2014 runtime still include the runtime li= brary exception (particularly some .S and .ld files -- likely files missed = by some tool used to remove the exception from *.ad?). At some point "the GCC developers" (whatever that means) decided/agreed to = include the FSF's runtime library exception into GCC. How they pulled that= off seems like magic -- how do they know they got every author to agree to= that exception? But now AdaCore, while certainly a significant contributor to the runtime b= ut not the sole author, gets to decide to include or exclude the exception = based on whether or not you pay them? What's to stop anyone else from beco= ming an author of the runtime and putting that exception in files that don'= t have them? I get the spirit of the GPL, but the FSF has spoken about why GCC has the e= xception: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html I get that, too. So given that, who really has the right to change the lic= ense of any particular GNAT runtime? And this is of practical concern. I have added support for the TM4C123 MCU= in the zfp-support-gpl-2014 runtime. I'm quite happy to transfer the copy= right to the FSF (though I'm not sure how to go about that). But going for= ward, if I include the runtime exception, does that mean AdaCore simply can= not remove it from the files I wrote? What should I do to "give back" my w= ork? It seems very confusing and messy. Of course, I am neither seeking nor offering legal advice, rather asking fo= r your perspective or informed opinion. Best regards, Patrick P.S. Right after where the exception is/should be is this clause: -- You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and = -- -- a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program; = -- -- see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If not, see = -- -- . = -- I could not find a copy the GCC Runtime Library Exception in the GNAT-GPL v= ersion.