Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available

["Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Samuel Tardieu a écrit :
> Do you think that the DoD (the funder of the early GNAT versions)
> intent was to restrict the use of GNAT to programs using the GPL
> license and to AdaCore (which didn't exist) customers?

I think the DoD didn't care, because it had the money to pay for
any license it required.  Or maybe they'd have insisted on GPL
for everyone except the DoD, for fear that the Russians would build
military software with GNAT :)

By the same token, I don't think that current paying customers of
AdaCore care.  I think that the only ones who are really hurt by
AdaCore's decision are the SMEs and individuals who want to write
commercial software in Ada, but don't have the money to pay for
AdaCore's (or other companies') support contracts.  Like I said,
these non-customers of AdaCore's are a potential market.

> The real problem is not technical. It is still possible to build a
> "clean" compiler which can be used on any kind of sources. The problem
> is political. AdaCore's move causes a lot of confusion in the
> community and may make companies unsure of what they can and can't do.

I agree that there is confusion.  A lot of companies would like "free
software" to be free for companies; it isn't.  It is "free" for end
users.  It gives freedoms to end users and imposes requirements on
companies or producers of software.  Additional confusion is fueled
by "open source" (business- friendly attitude) and by the multiplicity
of licenses.

> I think it would have been much better if AdaCore had kept the GMGPL
> version, or if they had not complicated everything by providing
> GPL-only packages. The situation was simple (be an AdaCore customer or
> get your compiler from another source such as a GNU/Linux distribution
> or build it from FSF sources), it is now ugly (in some cases, you can
> get a GNAT compiler which doesn't allow you to use a GPL-incompatible
> license for your source code if you intend to redistribute the
> result).

Yes, I agree it is ugly to have multiple sources for the same software
under different licenses.   I hope that once the vote is over (next
Tuesday), the ugliness will be dealt with for good, at least as far as
Debian is concerned.  BTW, Tapio Kelloniemi suggested providing both
GNAT GPL 2005 Edition and GCC 4.0 in Debian.  I will not support two
different GNATs in Debian, especially if they have different licenses.

> I still fail to understand this tactical move.

Me too, but as I said, AdaCore is under no obligation to explain.  If
they care to explain, I'm all ears, of course.

My message is that nobody has a right to *complain* about AdaCore's
decision, or even demand an explanation; but people should decide for
themselves what to do about it.  The vote is designed to do just that.

I anticipate that (1) this public vote will show that a majority of
software developers reject the GPL for libgnat, (2) Debian will not
include GNAT GPL 2005 Edition, (3) no other distribution will, and
(4) AdaCore will probably take that into account when they think about
a new public release.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.