* GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades @ 2005-10-04 20:15 Marc A. Criley 2005-10-05 8:04 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2005-10-04 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw) (Hmm, this subject seems to have sputtered out, better get some gasoline... :-) I wrote to AdaCore to ask them what their maintenance and upgrade intentions were for the GNAT GPL Edition. I received a quite timely response that said their intent is to "[keep] this version roughly in sync with the latest GNAT Pro releases" and "in fact the latest GPL edition is more recent than the latest GNAT Pro official release, it corresponds to the more recent GNAT Pro Ada 2005 Beta". Maybe Ludovic should rerun his Debian survey? Declining to include a maintained Ada development environment on a Linux distribution may be unwise... -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-04 20:15 GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades Marc A. Criley @ 2005-10-05 8:04 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 8:58 ` michael bode ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw) Marc A. Criley a écrit : > (Hmm, this subject seems to have sputtered out, better get some > gasoline... :-) > > I wrote to AdaCore to ask them what their maintenance and upgrade > intentions were for the GNAT GPL Edition. > > I received a quite timely response that said their intent is to "[keep] > this version roughly in sync with the latest GNAT Pro releases" and "in > fact the latest GPL edition is more recent than the latest GNAT Pro > official release, it corresponds to the more recent GNAT Pro Ada 2005 Beta". > > Maybe Ludovic should rerun his Debian survey? Declining to include a > maintained Ada development environment on a Linux distribution may be > unwise... I warned against this on several occasions, and urged respondents to the survey to take all aspects into consideration. I also said that no matter what, GCC in Debian will never be as good as the GNAT GPL Edition. Also, packaging GNAT GPL 2005 Edition was my first intention (per the Debian Ada Policy, which I'm in the process of updating). This apparently has had little or no effect on the results. OTOH, I wouldn't want to spend my time on packages that nobody uses. Also, while the "selfish argument" has no effect on my decision[1], I am sensitive to the "interoperability argument", which pleads in favour of GCC. As a heads-up: I have not yet started the transition, so it is still time, if you wish, to cast more votes which perhaps will change the outcome. My plan is to wait for a month or so. The gcc_4_1_branch is due to be created in the coming days or weeks on gcc.gnu.org; I feel confident that the corresponding Debian package will appear soon thereafter in unstable or in experimental. I will start the transition when this happens. [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 8:04 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 8:58 ` michael bode 2005-10-05 9:39 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: michael bode @ 2005-10-05 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. Probably you will just teach selfish people to avoid Ada if they want to program closed source software. The whole debate would be completly pointless if there was a $$$ "GNAT Standard Edition" with GMGPL and without $$$$$ support contracts. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 8:04 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 8:58 ` michael bode @ 2005-10-05 9:39 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-05 11:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 12:25 ` Marc A. Criley 2005-10-05 18:17 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 3 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta a �crit : > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. > Not a formal vote, but... I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have received". Anything, including proprietary software. The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a marketing and a popularity point of view. If the community clearly refuses this edition (and not having it in Debian is quite a strong indication), maybe AdaCore will revise its policy. Moreover, I find it quite logical for Debian to just use the standard GCC tree. The whole issue is about packaging, not the compiler. I even think that it would be OK to take the GPL edition, replace the offending packages from the version in the GCC tree, and release the whole stuff under GMGPL. But then, someone has to do the packaging... -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 9:39 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 11:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 12:50 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Pierre Rosen a écrit : > Ludovic Brenta a écrit : > > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", > > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach > > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, > > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. > > > Not a formal vote, but... > > I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. > As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do > anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have > received". Anything, including proprietary software. Precisely. With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this same right. The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you cannot deny others this right anymore. This is the "free" spirit as defined by Stallman and the FSF. The BSD license does allow you to deny rights to others, and has a different definition of "free". > The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a marketing > and a popularity point of view. If the community clearly refuses this > edition (and not having it in Debian is quite a strong indication), > maybe AdaCore will revise its policy. Yes, this is a possibility. > Moreover, I find it quite logical for Debian to just use the standard > GCC tree. Well, latest /= greatest, that's why I kept gnat 3.15p in Debian for so long instead of moving to GCC. Also, GCC is not "standard" by any measure (Ada is not a release criterion for GCC). In contrast, GNAT GPL is "standard" by two measures: it has been blessed by AdaCore, and is known to build ASIS, GLADE, GPS etc. correctly. > The whole issue is about packaging, not the compiler. I even think that > it would be OK to take the GPL edition, replace the offending packages > from the version in the GCC tree, and release the whole stuff under > GMGPL. But then, someone has to do the packaging... I contemplated this idea, but when I saw the size of the diff, I backed out. I did "diff -I^-- gcc/gcc/ada gnat-gpl-2005-src/src/ada" (note: ignoring comments and therefore the change of license) and found: GCC 3.4.4 to GPL: 16.0 megabytes GCC 4.0.1 to GPL: 11.0 megabytes GCC HEAD to GPL: 7.1 megabytes Even with 4.1, the difference is huge. And note that this is only the Ada part of GCC. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 11:10 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 12:50 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Alex R. Mosteo ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta a �crit : > Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit : >>I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. >>As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do >>anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have >>received". Anything, including proprietary software. > > > Precisely. With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the > source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this > same right. The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you > cannot deny others this right anymore. Not exactly. With the GMGPL, you certainly cannot prevent anyone from seeing the source code of the GNAT run-time; you are just not required to provide it. In the case of a compiler, it really does not make sense to restrict what the compiler can be used for. Do you imagine distributing GIMP with a notice saying that if you distribute any image produced with it, it must be exempt of rights? This would certainly be perceived as a restriction on freedom! -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 12:50 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 14:40 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Pierre Rosen a écrit : > Ludovic Brenta a écrit : > > Jean-Pierre Rosen a écrit : > >>I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. > >>As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do > >>anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have > >>received". Anything, including proprietary software. > > > > > > Precisely. With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the > > source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this > > same right. The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you > > cannot deny others this right anymore. > > Not exactly. With the GMGPL, you certainly cannot prevent anyone from > seeing the source code of the GNAT run-time; you are just not required > to provide it. But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications. Thus, you can make a closed-source version of the run-time. > In the case of a compiler, it really does not make sense to restrict > what the compiler can be used for. Do you imagine distributing GIMP with > a notice saying that if you distribute any image produced with it, it > must be exempt of rights? This would certainly be perceived as a > restriction on freedom! Run-time library /= compiler. You yourself pointed that out today in a previous post. Therefore, your comparison with GIMP is incorrect, because GIMP does not include any "run-time library" into images. If you want independence from the run-time library and its license, you know what to do: pragma No_Run_Time. But this has been explained many times over already, here and in countless other places where a library is placed under the GPL (e.g. the Qt library, or the MySQL client library[1]). There seems to be a widespread perception that all libraries, especially ones that come with a compiler, must always allow writing proprietary software with them. This is not true: the authors of the library alone decide on that. You may object that "the GNAT run-time library is part of the Ada standard"; it is not. It is an implementation of the Ada standard, and as all implementations of any standard, it has its own license. I agree with you that this may have been a bad move, from a marketing perspective, both for AdaCore and for Ada in general (this is the "marketing argument"). [1] See myth #6 in http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/dispelling-the-myths.html I think it would be nice if AdaCore granted a FLOSS exception similar to MySQL's, thus addressing the "other free software argument" which concerns me quite a lot. [2] I've summarised all arguments earlier on this group; for reference see http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/24ac770ebf312b7a/586cefe12b7f4066?hl=fr#586cefe12b7f4066 -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 14:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 15:38 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) > [2] I've summarised all arguments earlier on this group; for reference > see > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/24ac770ebf312b7a/586cefe12b7f4066?hl=fr#586cefe12b7f4066 Better URL: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/8d1b6d93ee815f87 > -- > Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 14:40 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 15:38 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-05 16:22 ` Poul-Erik Andreasen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta a �crit : > But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your > program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications. Thus, you > can make a closed-source version of the run-time. I don't think so, GMGPL is not BSD (but IANAL). What the GMGPL allows is using the RTL without making your program fall under the GPL. On all other aspects, it is GPL. > Run-time library /= compiler. You yourself pointed that out today in > a previous post. Therefore, your comparison with GIMP is incorrect, > because GIMP does not include any "run-time library" into images. I know the comparison is not perfect, but what I mean is that the goal of a compiler (in the wide sense, including the library) is to produce programs. The fact that it does so by using a library rather that generating code in-line is an implementation detail. This is just an analogy. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 14:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 15:38 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 16:22 ` Poul-Erik Andreasen 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-10-13 21:13 ` wojtek 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Poul-Erik Andreasen @ 2005-10-05 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit : > > >>Ludovic Brenta a �crit : >> >>>Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit : >>> >>>>I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. >>>>As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do >>>>anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have >>>>received". Anything, including proprietary software. >>> >>> >>>Precisely. With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the >>>source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this >>>same right. The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you >>>cannot deny others this right anymore. >> >>Not exactly. With the GMGPL, you certainly cannot prevent anyone from >>seeing the source code of the GNAT run-time; you are just not required >>to provide it. > > > But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your > program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications. Thus, you > can make a closed-source version of the run-time. > Thats wrong GMGPL dos not allow you to do that. You are even not allowed to modify the runtime and publicise it under GMGPL, and then use that libery for linking into your code. There are no inheretence in GMGPL. Any modifications in GMGPL-code will return in GPL licenced code. Poul-Erik Andreasen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-05 16:22 ` Poul-Erik Andreasen @ 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-10-13 21:13 ` wojtek 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-10-05 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:06:17 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Run-time library /= compiler. You yourself pointed that out today in > a previous post. Therefore, your comparison with GIMP is incorrect, > because GIMP does not include any "run-time library" into images. although a multi-colour gradient fill you make with GIMP *is* a creative work under copyright law, and the output generated would reasonably be covered as a derived work. And I would guess an aesthetically pleasing filter kernel built into GIMP would be treated similarly. And creative special-effects built in too. Fonts you would expect also to be covered, if they were build in to the GIMP, but these are normally separate, but the copyright on fonts is rather limited, if I remember correctly. I agree with Jean-Pierre's analogy. -- Adrian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-10-13 21:13 ` wojtek 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: wojtek @ 2005-10-13 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your > program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications. Thus, you > can make a closed-source version of the run-time. One would have to be insane to try that. This is because you need help testing it. We are working on a modified runtime. It's painful and slow. It is supposed to implement all the tasks in one process, and make use of asynchronous IO to schedule them. Similar concept to GNU Pth, SGI state threads. Regards, Wojtek Narczynski ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 11:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 12:50 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2005-10-05 15:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 21:25 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-06 1:18 ` David Trudgett 3 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Alex R. Mosteo @ 2005-10-05 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit : > > >> Ludovic Brenta a �crit : >> >>> [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish >>> argument", the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, >>> just to teach selfish people that if they refuse to give, then >>> they cannot take, as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. >>> >> >> Not a formal vote, but... >> >> I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free >> software. As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is >> "you can do anything with this software, *except* deny to others >> the rights you have received". Anything, including proprietary >> software. > > > Precisely. With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify > the source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others > this same right. The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with > it you cannot deny others this right anymore. This is the "free" > spirit as defined by Stallman and the FSF. The BSD license does > allow you to deny rights to others, and has a different definition of > "free". > > >> The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a >> marketing and a popularity point of view. If the community clearly >> refuses this edition (and not having it in Debian is quite a strong >> indication), maybe AdaCore will revise its policy. > > > Yes, this is a possibility. > > >> Moreover, I find it quite logical for Debian to just use the >> standard GCC tree. > > > Well, latest /= greatest, that's why I kept gnat 3.15p in Debian for > so long instead of moving to GCC. Also, GCC is not "standard" by any > measure (Ada is not a release criterion for GCC). Indeed I think this is an important point. I don't use myself gcc-gnat but follow the gcc developers list for Ada related news. My (admitely perhaps innacurate) impression is that gcc-ada is in a state of great flow and sometimes brokeness that make it not that desirable as a free compiler at the moment. (it's known that one of the 3.3/3.4 versions was strongly not recommended --perhaps directly broken--, but I'm not sure which one of the two, and this was (IIRC) as a result of Ada not being a release criterion for gcc). > In contrast, GNAT GPL is "standard" by two measures: it has been > blessed by AdaCore, and is known to build ASIS, GLADE, GPS etc. > correctly. And so, as a hobbyist GPL developer, I will cast my late vote for the GPL version ;) followed by the latest gcc one. We must consider, and this I think is related with the vote to "wait" used by something else, that these gnat versions at the moment are changing to include the 2005 features. By experience I can say that if you use them [the features], you're going to see a lot more ICEs than when doing regular Ada 95 programming. That is, there must still pass quite some time until gnat become "stable" and the only changes are ironing out of rare bugs. (Is even the 0Y standard closed for that matter?) That's a reason not to include a version who's not actively receiving the changes (gcc.3.4? gcc.4.0?) if we're interested in a 0Y compiler instead of a 95 one. In any case, I'm afraid that any of these versions may require a lot of work for maintenance and patching. Ideally, I think we should aim to have the GPL edition and a GMGPL one, but I understand that it is a) more work and b) still more work to maintain the gcc one who's under heavy changing. Indeed I'm worried that the most work-effective stance, apart from the GPL edition who has all the toolkit ready, is to wait to see if a better replacement for 3.15p (and maybe the GPL) arises in the gcc branch in the future. In short, if I were Ludovic and were faced with a maintenance task, I'd leave 3.15p as it is, as the Ada95 choice; the GPL version as experimental 0Y with full toolkits, and would aim to replace it in the future with the GMGPL gcc one when it starts to settle and the 0Y feature set is complete. >> The whole issue is about packaging, not the compiler. I even think >> that it would be OK to take the GPL edition, replace the offending >> packages from the version in the GCC tree, and release the whole >> stuff under GMGPL. But then, someone has to do the packaging... > > > I contemplated this idea, but when I saw the size of the diff, I > backed out. I did "diff -I^-- gcc/gcc/ada gnat-gpl-2005-src/src/ada" > (note: ignoring comments and therefore the change of license) and > found: > > GCC 3.4.4 to GPL: 16.0 megabytes GCC 4.0.1 to GPL: 11.0 megabytes GCC > HEAD to GPL: 7.1 megabytes > > Even with 4.1, the difference is huge. And note that this is only > the Ada part of GCC. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Alex R. Mosteo @ 2005-10-05 15:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Alex R. Mosteo a écrit : [interesting stuff deleted] > In short, if I were Ludovic and were faced with a maintenance task, I'd > leave 3.15p as it is, as the Ada95 choice; the GPL version as > experimental 0Y with full toolkits, and would aim to replace it in the > future with the GMGPL gcc one when it starts to settle and the 0Y > feature set is complete. I'm actually planning to do something close to that. Debian Sarge is the current stable version, and its default Ada compiler is gnat 3.15p. Sarge will remain the current stable version until around December 2006, when Etch is released (the date is tentative: as always, Etch will be released "when it is ready"). I think we will probably end up with GCC 4.1 as the default Ada compiler in Etch. GCC 4.1 may not be perfect WRT Ada 2006, but it will support Ada 95 on more hardware platforms than does GNAT 3.15p; this is a big plus. Also, GCC 4.1 is likely to become the default compiler for C and C++ as well, meaning that it will receive good support on many targets. I suppose (but this is outside of my control) that GCC 4.1 will first appear in the "experimental" distribution of Debian, which is just designed for such purposes. For those who don't know how Debian works, "experimental" contains a small number of packages that must be installed on top of Sid (unstable). Packages do not migrate from experimental to Sid automatically, but only at their maintainer's explicit request. Currently, I'm waiting to see how things turn out upstream (i.e. on gcc.gnu.org). I also scan the gcc and gcc-patches lists for Ada- related things. I will announce the beginning of the transition on this forum. As I have said before, I don't have enough manpower to handle both GNAT GPL and GCC; it is one or the other. The vote that took place earlier means that I will go for GCC and ignore GNAT GPL completely. Unless, of course, there is a landslide of votes in the opposite direction, but this seems unlikely. (I've counted your vote and Marc's). -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 11:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 12:50 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Alex R. Mosteo @ 2005-10-05 21:25 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-06 1:18 ` David Trudgett 3 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-10-05 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you > cannot deny others this right anymore. This is the "free" spirit as > defined by Stallman and the FSF. The BSD license does allow you to > deny rights to others, and has a different definition of "free". You do know that the FSF considers the new BSD license free, don't you? -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 11:10 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-05 21:25 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-10-06 1:18 ` David Trudgett 2005-10-06 7:18 ` David Trudgett ` (2 more replies) 3 siblings, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: David Trudgett @ 2005-10-06 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit : > >> Ludovic Brenta a �crit : >> > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", >> > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach >> > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, >> > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. >> > >> Not a formal vote, but... >> >> I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. >> As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do >> anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have >> received". Anything, including proprietary software. Jean-Pierre is quite correct in this, and in his later (in other post) analogy with the Gimp. Free Software is, in fact, antithetical to software copyrights, point blank, no qualifications needed, since that is the only thing that makes "proprietary software" proprietary (internal software, aka trade secrets, do not enter into this). Thus, the FSF's use of copyright to fight copyright is ironic, if not hypocritical. (Probably the only thing saving it from *total* hypocrisy would be apparent if one were to suppose that the only reason "copyleft" is effective is because *other* people believe in copyright. However, that supposition would be ruled out the first time the FSF were to defend the GPL in a court of -violence- I mean law. I don't personally know if the FSF has ever prosecuted anyone over the GPL, but the consequences are obvious if they have.) > > Precisely. With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the > source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this > same right. This is just ingenuous, Ludovic. That means you are verging on dishonesty, but perhaps you wrote it at three in the morning. You know very well that (a) no one can be denied the right to see and modify the source code of the GNAT run-time, which flatly contradicts what you said; and (b) if one is going to deny the source of one's whole program, then denying them also one's (hypothetical) mods to the run-time is *totally* and *utterly* (did I emphasise that enough?) irrelevant. You also must further know that very few *if anyone* would be interested in making significant modifications to the run-time while *keeping them secret*, because *no benefit* would accrue to the proprietary software developer, but in fact precisely the opposite, because those "secret" modificiatons will have to be done over and over again for each new compiler/run-time[*] release. [*] Notice I say compiler/run-time. The distinction between compiler and run-time is artificial. Furthermore, (but the usual IANAL applies) it is far from clear whether one is even legally *allowed* to make modifications to the GNAT run-time and then distribute in binary-only form. Whether that is so or not, it would certainly seem to be against the spirit of the licence, if not the letter, to produce such binary distributions. The GMGPL simply "allows" one to link one's proprietary code; it does not give open slather on the GMGPL'ed code itself (the run-time). All of this you must know, yet you have apparently either made an inexplicable [**] mistake, or you chose to misrepresent the case, or you are not being intellectually honest even with yourself. [**] We all make mistakes, but inexplicable ones happen less often. Yours seems inexplicable because one supposes that you have given the subject serious thought and are not just writing the first thing that pops into your mind. > The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you > cannot deny others this right anymore. As noted above, this is an entirely bogus claim. > This is the "free" spirit as defined by Stallman and the FSF. The > BSD license does allow you to deny rights to others, and has a > different definition of "free". You're in error here. Stallman counts the BSD licence as being free, just not "copyleft": Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses, or some other permissive non-copyleft license, is not doing wrong; the program is still free software, and still a contribution to our community. But it is weak, and in most cases it is not the best way to promote users' freedom to share and change software. -- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html But why does RMS think that BSD is weak? Here is the answer: Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. -- ibid. In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their freedom of action, for what other meaning can, "you let him do it," and, "failing to defend their freedom," have? RMS makes a fundamental mistake here. Refusing to use violence is not equivalent to letting someone do something. It is simply acknowledging that violence is not a legitimate means to stop someone from doing something. Just ask yourself a simple question, "Would Jesus see a lawyer to have someone thrown into jail for violating his 'copyright'?" All good people who know anything about Jesus know the answer to that question in their hearts. It's something for anyone calling himself or herself a Christian to think about. Other people are free to ignore it, if they wish... Note that none of this is defending proprietary software distribution (but I have no problem with internal or "trade secret" software). It is pointing out that proprietary software (distributed) is wrong for the same reason that copylefted software (if taken seriously) is wrong: it employs violence or the threat of violence against people. The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this? It's either hypocrisy or ingenuousness (in the case that copyright law is being used in bad faith, i.e., while not believing in it). Richard Stallman says that the only freedom denied by the GPL is the freedom to deny other people freedom. This is just not true. For a start, it denies the freedom to choose one's own Free Software licensing terms, and to incorporate other software licensed under different Free terms. As we have seen with the GNAT GPL, it can also deny people the right to license their own software any way they wish, which may even include restrictive, unfree terms. The fact that we may believe it is wrong [***] to impose such terms, does not make it legitimate for us to use violence (something which is also wrong) in order to have our way over the will of another person. It is doubly wrong in that we are *not* gods who can know all about everyone and every possible situation and therefore be in a position to sit in judgement. [****] [***] Note that I do not say 'immoral'. Immorality consists not only in doing something wrong, but also in knowing that what one is doing is wrong. [****] It may be of interest to Christians, that Christ, according to conventional Christian doctrine, was in precisely this position, yet even he refused to judge. > >> The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a marketing >> and a popularity point of view. True. One does not win friends by bludgeoning them, but by treating them with respect. Contempt for freedom in the name of freedom is especially obnoxious... especially since we know that ACT is not in the business of promoting freedom, but of making a profit. That is the corporate imperative, after all. David -- David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/ In ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed, but in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the Neros, are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them. One set of people have suggested, another set have proposed, a third have reported, a fourth have decided, a fifth have confirmed, a sixth have given the order, and a seventh set of men have carried it out. They hang, they flog to death women, old men, and innocent people, as was done recently among us in Russia at the Yuzovsky factory, and is always being done everywhere in Europe and America in the struggle with the anarchists and all other rebels against the existing order; they shoot and hang men by hundreds and thousands, or massacre millions in war, or break men's hearts in solitary confinement, and ruin their souls in the corruption of a soldier's life, and no one is responsible. -- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-06 1:18 ` David Trudgett @ 2005-10-06 7:18 ` David Trudgett 2005-10-06 8:03 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-06 8:53 ` Hyman Rosen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: David Trudgett @ 2005-10-06 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw) David Trudgett <wpower@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes: > This is just ingenuous, Ludovic. The word my feeble mind was trying to think of was 'disingenuous', of course. Cheers, David -- David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/ Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave social ill, it seems to me that this is just as it should be. Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power? -- Dmitry Orlov ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-06 1:18 ` David Trudgett 2005-10-06 7:18 ` David Trudgett @ 2005-10-06 8:03 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-06 8:53 ` Hyman Rosen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-06 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw) David Trudgett wrote: > But why does RMS think that BSD is weak? Here is the answer: > > Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny > freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to > defend their freedom. > > -- ibid. > > In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the > violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their > freedom of action, for what other meaning can, "you let him do it," > and, "failing to defend their freedom," have? Yes, and forceful protection of this or that freedom is not unusual. Hypocrisy only arrises when you fix the definition of freedom to be universal, close to the halting problem, and inapplicable in the real world: Many people will ask the police for violence when a robber is threatening a hostage. When there appears to be no other way to free the hostage, shoot the robber when you can make sure you won't kill the hostage. In other words, use violence of the law to stamp on the robbers (perceived) freedom of action, on behalf of both the hostage, and society as represented by its legal rules. There are two instances of freedom here. (If you think the robber doesn't have this freedom of action, just think of a less simplisitc situation that is less clear. Motives such as hunger, culture based assumptions in a country where people have different cultural backgrounds, in-group jurisdiction in areas where there is no police, but where, formally, the rules of a country would apply, etc.) Yet shooting kidnappers doesn't mean that common sense says, shoot when you think you are free to do so. Rob when you think robbing is your freedom of action. I read that Florida legislation has spured a discussion on the degree of the freedom to use a gun early in the process. > The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies > freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny > freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this? Freedoms, as you have written, is plural. This or that freedom is just an overloading issue with "freedom". If you have a way to draw meaning from some absolute freedom, then, oK, there is nothing to argue about. The FSF says which freedoms they prefer, and why. I can't think that some absolute freedom exist on this planet as can be seen by looking at what you are free to do in this country or that country. Or by considering what nature forces you to do (you can't say, "I'm free not to eat", and "I'm free to live on", at the same time. Won't work.) As you mentioned, there are different definitions of "free". Do they matter when it comes to the legal content of the GPL? -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-06 1:18 ` David Trudgett 2005-10-06 7:18 ` David Trudgett 2005-10-06 8:03 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-06 8:53 ` Hyman Rosen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-06 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw) David Trudgett wrote: > Free Software is, in fact, antithetical to software copyrights... > Thus, the FSF's use of copyright to fight copyright is ironic, > if not hypocritical. Ironic only. The purpose of the FSF is to promote free software. The means by which it does so is irrelevant to its purpose. It has simply found something effective to use in a climate where software copyright exists. The FSF cannot change laws, so it must work within them. > In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the > violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their > freedom of action Yes, precisely, because "freedom of action" is not something he or the FSF values. The "four freedoms" that they do value have been repeated often. Stallman and the FSF advocate that software should be licensed (when lack of a license would inhibit the four freedoms) such that the four freedoms are maintained for everyone. Permitting someone "freedom of action" would serve to allow him to deny others the four freedoms, and therefore this is to be discouraged. > RMS makes a fundamental mistake here. Refusing to use violence is not > equivalent to letting someone do something. It is simply acknowledging > that violence is not a legitimate means to stop someone from doing > something. Violence is a completely legitimate means to stop someone from doing something. It is used everywhere for this purpose, and it will continue to be used evereywhere for this purpose. You must learn to recognize the difference between "I do not like this" and "This is not legitimate" or you will simply appear ridiculous. Most people have a large number of interests that they support through "violence" (laws, courts, police, aremd forces, personal weapons) and they would laugh at you if you tried to tell them that these should be abolished because "violence" is wrong. > The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies > freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny > freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this? It's not at all difficult, when the position is explained correctly. You conflate the freedom that proprietary software denies with the freedom that the FSF/GPL denies. But those freedoms are not the same, and the FSF values one while it despises the other. The FSF is not interested in software developers. It doesn't care to make their lives easier, it doesn't care to make their jobs easier, and it doesn't care to make them wealthier. The FSF cares that people should be able to use programs, read them, change them, and redistribute them. It will use any available tool to guarantee these freedoms to all users. The fact that the same law underpins proprietary software and GPLed software is a small irony, no more than that. > Richard Stallman says that the only freedom denied by the GPL is the > freedom to deny other people freedom. This is just not true. For a > start, it denies the freedom to choose one's own Free Software > licensing terms, and to incorporate other software licensed under > different Free terms. Many software projects which want to be "more free" than the GPL just allow for dual-licensing. Then people can redistribute their code as part of GPLed works and as part of works licensed in other ways. For example, you can find BSD-licensed code mixed into GPLed code. The only reason not to allow code to be released under the GPL is because you want to restrict some of the freedoms the GPL demands, and then RMS will hold no truck with you. > As we have seen with the GNAT GPL, it can also deny people the right > to license their own software any way they wish It's not entirely their own software. It has other people's software mixed into it, and the law gives them a say over the entire work. And yes, those people are willing to use violence to enforce that say. > True. One does not win friends by bludgeoning them, but by treating > them with respect. Why do you think that ACT is trying to win friends? And I think ACT is perfectly willing to do without "friends" who whine that freely-given gifts are insufficiently generous. > Contempt for freedom in the name of freedom is especially obnoxious > especially since we know that ACT is not in the business of promoting > freedom, but of making a profit. It is the most hypocritical of all to whine that a company is preventing you from doing exactly what you would prevent others from doing. It is hypocritical to seek to profit from the labor of others without paying them, and to whine that they aren't letting you do that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 8:04 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 8:58 ` michael bode 2005-10-05 9:39 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-05 12:25 ` Marc A. Criley 2005-10-05 18:17 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 3 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2005-10-05 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Marc A. Criley a �crit : > >>Maybe Ludovic should rerun his Debian survey? Declining to include a >>maintained Ada development environment on a Linux distribution may be >>unwise... > > I warned against this on several occasions, and urged respondents to > the survey to take all aspects into consideration. I also said that > no matter what, GCC in Debian will never be as good as the GNAT GPL > Edition. Also, packaging GNAT GPL 2005 Edition was my first intention > (per the Debian Ada Policy, which I'm in the process of updating). > This apparently has had little or no effect on the results. Oh, what the hell, I'd reverse my vote given the chance. 2 pts for GNAT GPL Edition, no second choice, and no negatives. Marc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 8:04 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-05 12:25 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2005-10-05 18:17 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 3 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-05 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. Much of what I release publicly is under the GMGPL. This gives the recipient greater freedom than the GPL. They can take parts of my application and include it in their work, and release it under any license they choose. But I guess I'm just selfish and deserve what I get. -- Jeff Carter "We'll make Rock Ridge think it's a chicken that got caught in a tractor's nuts!" Blazing Saddles 87 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 18:17 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-06 18:20 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-05 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes: > Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", >> the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach >> selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, >> as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. > > Much of what I release publicly is under the GMGPL. This gives the > recipient greater freedom than the GPL. They can take parts of my > application and include it in their work, and release it under any > license they choose. But I guess I'm just selfish and deserve what I > get. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. Of course you are not selfish; you are being super-unselfish, by allowing people to take your work while at the same time keeping their own work secret. The "selfish argument" was raised here by people who would like to do that with the GNAT library. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-06 18:20 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-06 19:20 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-06 22:27 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-06 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. Of course you are not > selfish; you are being super-unselfish, by allowing people to take > your work while at the same time keeping their own work secret. The > "selfish argument" was raised here by people who would like to do that > with the GNAT library. But if I create an application using my GMGPL code and the GNAT GPL compiler, my program (and all of its source code) must become GPL, and I am not allowed to be "super-unselfish". Thus, I find the GNAT GPL compiler unsuitable for my purposes. I consider it inappropriate for any compiler to take such choices from me, and for any OS to supply such a compiler. -- Jeff Carter "I soiled my armor, I was so scared." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 71 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-06 18:20 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-06 19:20 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-06 22:27 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-06 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > But if I create an application using my GMGPL code > and the GNAT GPL compiler, my program (and all of > its source code) must become GPL, and I am not allowed > to be "super-unselfish". That's not true. When you distribute your sources along with your binary, there is nothing stopping you from adding that special exemption to the license for your own code. Then the people to whom you have distributed can build an executable using your code and distribute it to others without giving them the source to your code, just as you would like them to be able to do. It just means that they can't do it using the GNAT GPL compiler. > Thus, I find the GNAT GPL compiler unsuitable for my > purposes. I consider it inappropriate for any compiler > to take such choices from me, and for any OS to supply > such a compiler. It's unsuitable for people who want to build programs not bound by the GPL. But it's fine if they want to build such programs and grant additional exemptions on their own code. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-06 18:20 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-06 19:20 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-06 22:27 ` Simon Wright 2005-10-07 5:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-10-06 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes: > But if I create an application using my GMGPL code and the GNAT GPL > compiler, my program (and all of its source code) must become GPL, and > I am not allowed to be "super-unselfish". Thus, I find the GNAT GPL > compiler unsuitable for my purposes. I consider it inappropriate for > any compiler to take such choices from me, and for any OS to supply > such a compiler. I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a different compiler; where's the problem? The GPL hasn't been tested, has it, but it does say (in Section 2) "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-06 22:27 ` Simon Wright @ 2005-10-07 5:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-07 5:54 ` Simon Wright 2005-10-07 11:57 ` Simon Clubley 0 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-07 5:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable > affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you > would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was > and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds > rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a > different compiler; where's the problem? The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the run-time library is GPL. -- Jeff Carter "No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle, do you understand? Even--and I want to make this absolutely clear--even if they do say, 'Jehovah.'" Monty Python's Life of Brian 74 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 5:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-07 5:54 ` Simon Wright 2005-10-07 18:43 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-07 11:57 ` Simon Clubley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-10-07 5:54 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes: > Simon Wright wrote: > >> I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable >> affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you >> would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was >> and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds >> rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a >> different compiler; where's the problem? > > The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way > falls under the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any > program that uses the run-time library is GPL. No, it is not GPL, it must be released under the terms of the GPL. I suppose there might be an argument that a person who distributes a binary that mixes GPL code and the Booch Components (which are GMGPL) would have to make available the BC sources under GPL terms, but the recipient could always come back to me and ask for a fresh copy under GMGPL. Or indeed any other terms (they would fail, probably, because it's not just my copyright in there, the other authors would have to agree too). I just think this is all FUD. From the Libre site -- Q I would like to release my software under the XYZ license, which is a Free Software license according to the FSF, but is incompatible with the GPL. What should I do? A The GNAT GPL Edition doesn't limit in any way the license you use on your sources. If you are distributing sources only, no issue with respect to the license of GNAT GPL Edition arises. You or anyone who wants to build a binary can do so freely from these sources, using either the GNAT GPL compiler or any other suitable Ada compiler. If you want to *distribute* a binary of your program compiled with the compiler in the GNAT GPL Edition then *today* the binary must be licensed under the GPL. Note that you can still license a copy of your sources under the XYZ Free Software license of your choosing. It is AdaCore's intention to work with the FSF to modify the licensing of the GNAT GPL Edition to allow the use of other Free Software licenses for binaries produced with the compiler inside the GNAT GPL Edition. Meanwhile, you can distribute in source form only. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 5:54 ` Simon Wright @ 2005-10-07 18:43 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-08 6:18 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-07 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > From the Libre site -- > > Q I would like to release my software under the XYZ license, which is > a Free Software license according to the FSF, but is incompatible with > the GPL. What should I do? > > A The GNAT GPL Edition doesn't limit in any way the license you use on > your sources. If you are distributing sources only, no issue with > respect to the license of GNAT GPL Edition arises. You or anyone who > wants to build a binary can do so freely from these sources, using > either the GNAT GPL compiler or any other suitable Ada compiler. If > you want to *distribute* a binary of your program compiled with the > compiler in the GNAT GPL Edition then *today* the binary must be > licensed under the GPL. Note that you can still license a copy of your > sources under the XYZ Free Software license of your choosing. It is > AdaCore's intention to work with the FSF to modify the licensing of > the GNAT GPL Edition to allow the use of other Free Software licenses > for binaries produced with the compiler inside the GNAT GPL > Edition. Meanwhile, you can distribute in source form only. I don't recall seeing this when I 1st perused the GNAT GPL site. Is it a recent addition? If, in fact, I can release a binary compiled with GNAT GPL and still use license L* on my code, then the situation is not as I thought. Of course, IANAL. *For me, L would be GMGPL, but I thought it best to use general terms here. -- Jeff Carter "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 66 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 18:43 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-08 6:18 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-10-08 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes: > I don't recall seeing this when I 1st perused the GNAT GPL site. Is > it a recent addition? I found this at https://libre2.adacore.com/dynamic/gnat_faq.html (this is actually the GNAT GPL Edition FAQ). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 5:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-07 5:54 ` Simon Wright @ 2005-10-07 11:57 ` Simon Clubley 2005-10-07 12:29 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Simon Clubley @ 2005-10-07 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes: > Simon Wright wrote: > >> I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable >> affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you >> would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was >> and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds >> rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a >> different compiler; where's the problem? > > The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under > the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the > run-time library is GPL. > Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people _within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada. The following is something that Richard Stallman wrote a few weeks ago on the Theora mailing list. (Theora is an open source video codec) ------------------------------------------ |> Is how much a piece of code will be used the important factor in the |> decision? Do we just want to create code which is as widely used as |> possible, or do we want to write code which guarantees certain freedoms |> to the user. | |Which of these goals is most important depends on the detalis |of the situation. In most cases, I think the latter is more |important. If someone doesn't use the program, we say |"That's your loss." | |The Ogg codecs are an exception because we are also in a battle to |convince people to switch away from formats that free software can't |handle. It is very important to us for non-free apps to support |Ogg/Vorbis and Ogg/Theora. ------------------------------------------ Note the last paragraph. I think that Ada is pretty much in the same situation as Theora, in that we want people to adopt it instead of other currently more popular alternatives and that the overriding requirement should be to keep the barrier to using Ada as low as possible. If ACT have confused members within the Ada community, consider what the effect will have been on potential new Ada users, who will now probably just see the new barrier that they cannot do that same things with the GCC Ada compiler that they can with the GCC C++ compiler. Simon. PS: Yes, I know that the code in the FSF GCC codebase is currently GMGPL. How many potential new users do you think will get far enough along to discover that, and of those who do, how many will wonder if this codebase will now change to pure GPL as well ? -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: The Standard Oil Company of the 21st century ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 11:57 ` Simon Clubley @ 2005-10-07 12:29 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-07 12:50 ` Jeff Creem 2005-10-07 23:11 ` Björn Persson 2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-07 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Clubley wrote: > Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source > and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people > _within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just > created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada. Not speaking on AdaCore's behalf, I think the only persons who have created confusion in the Ada community are those who manage to make people think that there is now only one GNAT, and that it can be used in GPL projects only. And that this must somehow introduce the decline of Ada. The comments sound like free riders' moaning in almost all cases. (Exceptional cases have been presented in GNAT GPL threads, and it seems that the new paragraph on compatible free licenses at the libre site is a reaction to corresponding inquiries from the Ada community (I guess).) It might be a disservice to Ada to continue lament and speculation, in the presence of a comparatively rich set of compiler alternatives, including free ones of highest quality. > PS: Yes, I know that the code in the FSF GCC codebase is currently GMGPL. > How many potential new users do you think will get far enough along to > discover that, All users of GNU/Linux distributions for example might see the system Ada compiler first, i.e. the FSF GNAT. And only later, if at all, will they discover the GNAT GPL Edition. If someone wishes to use some package like AWS within a closed source application, they can go and ask the authors for a license. Maybe RR Software will present a very nice and affordable Ada 2005 solution on MSWindows. Rumor has it that the compiler has very good error messages, and helpful exception tracing. > and of those who do, how many will wonder if this codebase > will now change to pure GPL as well ? I might as well ask how many will wonder if AdaCore is a healthy company that will continue to contribute their code to GCC. Now _this_ is spreading FUD. ;-) -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 11:57 ` Simon Clubley 2005-10-07 12:29 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-07 12:50 ` Jeff Creem 2005-10-25 15:44 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-07 23:11 ` Björn Persson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeff Creem @ 2005-10-07 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Clubley wrote: > In article <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes: > >>Simon Wright wrote: >> >> >>>I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable >>>affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you >>>would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was >>>and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds >>>rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a >>>different compiler; where's the problem? >> >>The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under >>the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the >>run-time library is GPL. >> > > > Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source > and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people > _within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just > created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada. > No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused and upset. I find this to generally be true with all non-trivial license terms including that of most free software projects as well as proprietary projects. Of course I can't argue with your core assertion since the developers that are now having to confront license issues are people interested in Ada... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 12:50 ` Jeff Creem @ 2005-10-25 15:44 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 16:35 ` Szymon Guz ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes: Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused Jeff> and upset. It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert Dewar (6 May 1999): "In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY this split model. One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff), but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate situation :-)" Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff". Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one anymore. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 15:44 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 16:35 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-26 13:43 ` Martin Krischik 2005-10-25 20:47 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-25 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu napisał(a): >>>>>>"Jeff" == Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes: > > > Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers > Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when > Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused > Jeff> and upset. > > It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy > completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert > Dewar (6 May 1999): > > "In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine > legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x, > possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that > allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed > it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an > incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY > this split model. > > One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea > (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual > licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff), > but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have > heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full > access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing > proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate > situation :-)" > > Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual > licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff". > > Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one > anymore. > > Sam Another problem can be the price that ACT wants for GNAT. About a year ago I wrote a mail to ACT and asked about the price. The answer was that I cannot buy licence for one seat, I can buy for at least 5 seats. They offered me all others products (for about 20% of their normal price) and GNAT Pro for 5 seats just for about 30 000 euros. For many companies this is too much as they can have e.g. Delphi|Builder professional for 1000 euros with much more components. szymon guz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 16:35 ` Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-26 13:43 ` Martin Krischik 0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-10-26 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Am 25.10.2005, 19:35 Uhr, schrieb Szymon Guz <alpha@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT>: > Another problem can be the price that ACT wants for GNAT. About a year > ago I wrote a mail to ACT and asked about the price. The answer was that > I cannot buy licence for one seat, I can buy for at least 5 seats. They > offered me all others products (for about 20% of their normal price) and > GNAT Pro for 5 seats just for about 30 000 euros. For many companies > this is too much as they can have e.g. Delphi|Builder professional for > 1000 euros with much more components. Indeed! The price gap between GPL and GMGPl is the real problem. Prohibitory programmers should expect to pay for there compiler - but not that much. Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 15:44 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 16:35 ` Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-25 20:47 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-25 21:13 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-26 10:12 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-28 18:52 ` Larry Kilgallen 2005-11-02 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen 3 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-25 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: >>>>>>"Jeff" == Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes: > > > Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers > Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when > Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused > Jeff> and upset. > > It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy > completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert > Dewar (6 May 1999): > > "In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine > legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x, > possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that > allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed > it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an > incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY > this split model. > > One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea > (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual > licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff), > but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have > heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full > access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing > proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate > situation :-)" > > Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual > licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff". > > Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one > anymore. Do you have any indication that AdaCore offers software under anything but GPL or GMGPL? I don't, and I don't think you have. I think there isn't any. They use "the modified GPL for runtime stuff", see FSF GNAT. They have made a new, *additional* offering by packaging tons of software for "writing free software". They are even considering whether they can offer terms and conditions for combining software that uses different open source licenses. (According to the libre web site.) What makes you think that "AdaCore changed their mind and strategy completely?" -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 20:47 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-25 21:13 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 22:29 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-26 10:12 ` Steve Whalen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: Georg> Do you have any indication that AdaCore offers software under Georg> anything but GPL or GMGPL? I don't, and I don't think you Georg> have. I think there isn't any. I don't think either, but this is not the point at all. Georg> They use "the modified GPL for runtime stuff", see FSF Georg> GNAT. They have made a new, *additional* offering by packaging Georg> tons of software for "writing free software". They are even Georg> considering whether they can offer terms and conditions for Georg> combining software that uses different open source Georg> licenses. (According to the libre web site.) Exactly, they have made an additional offering, under a different license, leading to the first dual license for GNAT (GPL and GMGPL) that I know of. This is their right, but they said they chose not to do it in the past, see below. Georg> What makes you think that "AdaCore changed their mind and Georg> strategy completely?" Have you read the part I quoted? Here is a more reduced excerpt from Robert's post: (without changing the meaning of what he said, check the archives on Google Groups for example for the whole post) "it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context [...] at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff". AdaCore is now doing exactly what Robert said they chose not to: distribute GPL'ed software for price $0 [GNAT GPL] and charge people a bundle for a separate license that allows them to use the same software in a proprietary context [GNAT Pro] (I am paraphrasing him here as you can easily see). Looks like a huge change in mind and strategy to me compared to what was said and written before. You may think that this change is for good. But you cannot deny that this goes against the strategy that had been developed up to GNAT 3.15p. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 21:13 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 22:29 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-25 22:41 ` Samuel Tardieu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-25 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: > Exactly, they [AdaCore] have made an additional offering, under a different > license, No, it's the same license, there is just no exception to the terms of the very same license. And this only applies to the GNAT GPL edition. So there are two different editions of the compiler, and only one of these editions is for GPL use only. > leading to the first dual license for GNAT (GPL and GMGPL) > that I know of. There is one license for two editions of GNAT. One license comes with an exception, the other is without exception. The first covers Dewar's characterisation of the licensing situation completely, I think. I don't know whether we should diagnose a change of mind. It's rather a correction of expectations on our side that seems necessary. Has there been an illusion of a company that will go on to work hard and produce ever more software, well shaped and for free, packaged free for closed-source or non-GPL use? And I must repeat that WRT to compiler and runtime, the licensing situation has not changed, except that there are now two editions of the non-commercial compiler, not just one. > "it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software > for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate > license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary > context [...] at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no > such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for > runtime stuff". > > AdaCore is now doing exactly what Robert said they chose not to: > distribute GPL'ed software for price $0 [GNAT GPL] and charge people a > bundle for a separate license that allows them to use the same > software in a proprietary context [GNAT Pro] (I am paraphrasing him > here as you can easily see). They distribute GMGPL'ed software for price $0 [adding their sources to the FSF GNAT tree]. So what you say can't be right, at least if stated this way. People can use FSF GNAT at their own risk, just like before. I know of no *separate* license, just of an exception to the GPL. When they "use the modified GPL for runtime stuff", and they still do, they are doing exactly what Robert Dewar said. In fact, had there been no new, additional public AdaCore package at all this year, would anyone speculate about a change in mind and strategy? > Looks like a huge change in mind and strategy to me compared to what > was said and written before. I see no difference. In those days, GNAT wasn't readily available as part of a GCC distribution. Now it is, and GNAT is readily available for a number of popular OSs, under the same license as before. Some versions of GCC are know to have a very good Ada part. Not necessarily worse than what you get with the GNAT GPL edition. (And is it really true that you can compare GNAT 3.15p and GNAT GPL edition? I recall that most of the new stuff wasn't contained in ACT editions of GNAT 3.15p.) -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 22:29 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-25 22:41 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-26 10:53 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: Georg> No, it's the same license, there is just no exception to the Georg> terms of the very same license. Well, if for you the GPL and the GMGPL are the same license, I understand why you don't agree that the situation has changed. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 22:41 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-26 10:53 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-26 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: >>>>>>"Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > > > Georg> No, it's the same license, there is just no exception to the > Georg> terms of the very same license. > > Well, if for you the GPL and the GMGPL are the same license, I > understand why you don't agree that the situation has changed. Even when you consider the GPL and the GPL with exception two different licenses, then still GNAT's license has not changed. There is only yet another GNAT, this time GPL'ed without exception in addition to GMGPL'ed GNAT. -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 20:47 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-25 21:13 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-26 10:12 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-27 11:02 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Steve Whalen @ 2005-10-26 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Samuel Tardieu wrote: > > It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy > > completely. ... > ... > Do you have any indication that AdaCore offers software under anything > but GPL or GMGPL? I don't, and I don't think you have. I think there > isn't any. > > They use "the modified GPL for runtime stuff", see FSF GNAT. They have > made a new, *additional* offering by packaging tons of software for > "writing free software". > > What makes you think that "AdaCore changed their mind and strategy > completely?" Samuel is exactly right. AdaCore _has_ made a fundamental change. They are now doing exactly what they said they would _not_ do many many times starting in 1994. If you weren't reading comp.lang.ada and following GNAT back then, please use Google groups and go back and read what the ACT/AdaCore people were saying back then. They took great pains to explain that exactly what they are now doing would be "bad". Robert Dewar and ACT/AdaCore were downright passionate about creating the GMGPL license and keeping the GNAT Ada compilers licensed under it so the compilers could be used for any purpose, including for proprietary software development. Which lead many like myself to passionately support AdaCore. I don't understand your posts. You keep saying nothing has changed, but AdaCore no longer makes public releases of the GMGPL version of the Ada compiler (and tools). They are now doing something they never did before. They are going out of their way to "cripple" the only "free" version of GNAT they publish by removing the GMGPL exception language from the source files. The GMGPL is NOT the same as GPL. You seem to imply that they are equivalent when they are not. If they were equivalent, the GNAT team would not have spent time and money on lawyers to create the GMGPL. Also, the FSF CVS repository is NOT the same as an AdaCore public release of a GMGPL version of GNAT. In the past, when AdaCore released a new version up GNAT (up through 3.15p) they released an easily installable complete Ada programming system that could be used for proprietary software, on many platforms (Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc.). The FSF CVS tree is NOT equivalent because "we" have to compile usable binaries on whichever platform we want to use the Ada compiler on, AND we have to take it with the underlying gcc compiler platform which many time is in an unstable state, just when the Ada compiler is stable, and vice versa. I can't think of a single time so far when the FSF gcc Ada has been as "good" as any of the AdaCore public releases because of the difficulty of getting a "stable" version of Ada in the CVS repository at the same time the rest of gcc was "stable". Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-26 10:12 ` Steve Whalen @ 2005-10-27 11:02 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 13:39 ` Hyman Rosen ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-27 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Whalen wrote: > AdaCore _has_ made a fundamental change. They > are now doing exactly what they said they would _not_ do many many > times starting in 1994. If you weren't reading comp.lang.ada and > following GNAT back then, please use Google groups and go back and read > what the ACT/AdaCore people were saying back then. They took great > pains to explain that exactly what they are now doing would be "bad". "One of the guarantees that we make to customers right now is that they can use GNAT libraries without any concern about acquiring problematic licensing conditions that would apply to their generated programs. This is of course achieved in our case by use of the GNAT modified GPL (GMGPL). Any license that is at least this non-restrictive is fine with us. "... Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies" I can't find statements that Ada Core is/was commited to releasing only GMGPL packages of their software. I do remember reading that they would continue to contribute their sources to the FSF tree. > The GMGPL is NOT the same as GPL. The GMGPL is a modification of the GPL, using the same licensing text. In this sense, GMGPL is not a separate license. > You seem to imply that they are > equivalent when they are not. Whether you consider GPL and GMGPL to be equivalent in effect is a different question (and one that matters). For sure I don't consider the exception to be meaningless. Certainly one effect of the GMGPL exception is that you can distribute closed-source programs, (unless you use a software component that uses some other license with its own terms). > Also, the FSF CVS repository is NOT the same as an AdaCore public > release of a GMGPL version of GNAT. Yes. In fact, the (most welcome) gcc version 3.4.5 20050524 (prerelease) for GNAT GPL 2005 (20050614) has bugs that the FSF GNAT doesn't have, and vice versa. > The FSF CVS tree is NOT equivalent because "we" have to compile usable > binaries on whichever platform we want to use the Ada compiler on, You don't have to compile GNAT yourself if you are using Windows, or GNU/Linux (or Solaris, I believe), or Mac OS X. That should cover a number of non-embedded platforms, don't you think? In fact, Debian/GNU Linux has an integrated set of additional libraries for use with GNAT. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 11:02 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-27 13:39 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-27 14:05 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-28 5:10 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-28 5:41 ` Steve Whalen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-27 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Steve Whalen wrote: > "One of the guarantees that we make to customers Notice that AdaCore made this commitment to their customers, not to the general public. Another point against those who feel wronged by the GPL-only release. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 13:39 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-27 14:05 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 14:25 ` Pascal Obry 2005-10-27 15:50 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-27 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Hyman Rosen napisał(a): > Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >>Steve Whalen wrote: >>"One of the guarantees that we make to customers > > > Notice that AdaCore made this commitment to their customers, > not to the general public. Another point against those who > feel wronged by the GPL-only release. > well, so in fact we have no freeware Ada compilers for proprietary software, no really good and extendible window library, so the popularity of Ada will never grow up, I think, but maybe I'm wrong. szymon guz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 14:05 ` Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-27 14:25 ` Pascal Obry 2005-10-27 15:50 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2005-10-27 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Szymon Guz Szymon, > well, so in fact we have no freeware Ada compilers for proprietary > software, That's plain wrong. We are not going to start again this thread, right? > no really good and extendible window library, so the You to start one. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 14:05 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 14:25 ` Pascal Obry @ 2005-10-27 15:50 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 16:59 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-27 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Szymon Guz wrote: > Hyman Rosen napisał(a): > >> Georg Bauhaus wrote: >> >>> Steve Whalen wrote: >>> "One of the guarantees that we make to customers >> >> >> >> Notice that AdaCore made this commitment to their customers, >> not to the general public. Another point against those who >> feel wronged by the GPL-only release. >> > > well, so in fact we have no freeware Ada compilers for proprietary > software, no really good and extendible window library, so the > popularity of Ada will never grow up, I think, but maybe I'm wrong. You are wrong in that - we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception - good and extendible window libraries (CLAW, GWindows,..., GtkAda releases) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 15:50 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-27 16:59 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-27 17:09 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-27 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus a �crit : > - we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception That's exactly why I think ACT made a very bad move. If you are a 5 persons company (the ones most hit by the current decision), you generally have more time than money (those people don't count their hours ;-). You can spend some time building the Gnat you need from the FSF tree *if you are already an Adaddict*. If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks like, you want a ready-to-run distribution. You download Gnat from ACT's site (with some suspiscion: why do these guys require me to fill a form), and then you discover that you are forced to use it for free software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, Ada is just for those dreamers of the FSF, nothing like an industrial language". Of course, these people do not make the difference between Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro. Conclusion: it is a real disservice for the promotion of Ada that will not bring one single extra customer to AdaCore. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 16:59 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-27 17:09 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 17:33 ` Pascal Obry 2005-10-27 19:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-27 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Pierre Rosen napisał(a): > Georg Bauhaus a écrit : > >> - we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception > > That's exactly why I think ACT made a very bad move. > > If you are a 5 persons company (the ones most hit by the current > decision), you generally have more time than money (those people don't > count their hours ;-). You can spend some time building the Gnat you > need from the FSF tree *if you are already an Adaddict*. > > If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks > like, you want a ready-to-run distribution. You download Gnat from ACT's > site (with some suspiscion: why do these guys require me to fill a > form), and then you discover that you are forced to use it for free > software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, Ada is just for those dreamers > of the FSF, nothing like an industrial language". Of course, these > people do not make the difference between Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro. > > Conclusion: it is a real disservice for the promotion of Ada that will > not bring one single extra customer to AdaCore. > right, and when you want to buy GNAT from AdaCore, then you are told that you have to buy at least 5 licences (you cannot buy 2 or 3), the price is 14.000 euros (+ 7.000 euros for GTKAda), so you've got to pay 21.000 euros for licence for 5 seats. In my opinion this is too much, and some people that I talk to wanted to develop software using Ada2005 and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and very good. Now the turn towards Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 17:09 ` Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-27 17:33 ` Pascal Obry 2005-10-27 19:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2005-10-27 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Szymon Guz Szymon, > right, and when you want to buy GNAT from AdaCore, then you are told > that you have to buy at least 5 licences (you cannot buy 2 or 3), the > price is 14.000 euros (+ 7.000 euros for GTKAda), so you've got to pay > 21.000 euros for licence for 5 seats. In my opinion this is too much, > and some people that I talk to wanted to develop software using Ada2005 > and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and very good. Now the turn towards > Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper. Because you are comparing apples and oranges. You buy Delphi, AdaCore sell supports. And you are also comparing Delphi and Ada. AdaCore is not the only Ada compiler provider. We have pointed out (multiple times in this thread) GNAT compilers with GMGPL licences, grab it, use it. What's wrong with that ? You don't even need to buy it as you'll have to do for Delphi. Frankly I fail to understand your point. You can't have AdaCore support for free if this is what you are looking for. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 17:09 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 17:33 ` Pascal Obry @ 2005-10-27 19:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 19:49 ` Szymon Guz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-27 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Szymon Guz wrote: > In my opinion this is too much, > and some people that I talk to wanted to develop software using Ada2005 > and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and very good. Now the turn towards > Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper. This looks like a one-factor analysis to me. As Pascal said, you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Delphi and Ada 2005, so there might have been other factors leading to the decision. Perhaps like "Every one is ...", "I learned Pascal...", etc. Note also the price of Janus/Ada + CLAW, it's not too high for what you get. Could you ask your friends what really made them abondon Ada, not GNAT? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 19:18 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-27 19:49 ` Szymon Guz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-27 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus napisał(a): > Szymon Guz wrote: > >> In my opinion this is too much, and some people that I talk to wanted >> to develop software using Ada2005 and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and >> very good. Now the turn towards Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper. > > > This looks like a one-factor analysis to me. As Pascal said, > you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Delphi > and Ada 2005, so there might have been other factors leading > to the decision. Perhaps like "Every one is ...", "I learned > Pascal...", etc. Note also the price of Janus/Ada + CLAW, > it's not too high for what you get. > > Could you ask your friends what really made them abondon > Ada, not GNAT? As far as I know from them: Price ( GNAT + GTKAda for 5 seats costs about 21.000 euros) while Delphi costs about 5.000. With Delphi you get much more components for: - databases - visualization - GUI Other needed components you can easily find|buy on the net instead of writing. I think that's all; Theese programs where to be some database oriented software and some educational programs (e.g. for learning languages). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 16:59 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-27 17:09 ` Szymon Guz @ 2005-10-27 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-28 6:41 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-27 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > Georg Bauhaus a écrit : > >> - we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception > > That's exactly why I think ACT made a very bad move. > > If you are a 5 persons company (the ones most hit by the current > decision), you generally have more time than money (those people don't > count their hours ;-). Yeah, I know. ;-) > If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks > like, you want a ready-to-run distribution. Then just pick one (or use the one that comes with your OS). If Windows programmers need a squarish colored window in order to conceive of a compiler as a compiler, then there is a business opportunity. Write another colorful GNAT installer that promises ease of use. Use the MS trick. This has been suggested many times, and if the installer is worth it, I'll be among those who will consider bying at an adequate price. > You download Gnat from ACT's > site (with some suspiscion: why do these guys require me to fill a > form), and then you discover that you are forced to use it for free > software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, Ada is just for those dreamers > of the FSF, nothing like an industrial language". Of course, these > people do not make the difference between Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro. (Isn't this mere speculation? So no conclusions to be draw from this.) I don't think anyone can overlook the eye catching distinctions between the GNAT versions at the download site. I have seen this elsewhere, Eiffel software, Borland, Microsoft, .... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-28 6:41 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-30 14:17 ` Martin Krischik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-28 6:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus a écrit : >> If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks >> like, you want a ready-to-run distribution. > > > Then just pick one (or use the one that comes with your OS). > If Windows programmers need a squarish colored window in > order to conceive of a compiler as a compiler, > then there is a business opportunity. Write another colorful GNAT > installer that promises ease of use. Use the MS trick. This has been > suggested many times, and if the installer is worth it, I'll be > among those who will consider bying at an adequate price. Yes, a nice looking ready-to-use distribution is very important for the promotion of Ada. That's why everyone was happy when Adacore announced a new public version, long after the oldish 3.15p. And then everyone was disappointed to see that it had been done in a way that would have an adverse effect for the goal of promoting Ada. Of course, anyone could do another one. AdaCore has the tools to do it in a minute, but they don't want to. Now, someone has to go into all the nasty details of making a nice distribution to replace AdaCore. Who will do it? I don't think anybody will - and I regret it. I would bet that if such a distribution did appear, AdaCore would revert its position in the next week. >> You download Gnat from ACT's site (with some suspiscion: why do these >> guys require me to fill a form), and then you discover that you are >> forced to use it for free software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, >> Ada is just for those dreamers of the FSF, nothing like an industrial >> language". Of course, these people do not make the difference between >> Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro. > > > (Isn't this mere speculation? So no conclusions to be draw from this.) What I mean is that I can't imagine a "use case" where a customer would chose to use AdaCore's services due to this policy, and would have not if a GMGPL distribution were available *from Adacore*. OTOH, I can imagine many "use cases" where this situation harms the promotion of Ada. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 6:41 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen @ 2005-10-30 14:17 ` Martin Krischik 2005-10-30 17:44 ` Jeff Creem 2005-10-30 19:53 ` Anh Vo 0 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-10-30 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Am 28.10.2005, 09:41 Uhr, schrieb Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr>: > Of course, anyone could do another one. AdaCore has the tools to do it > in a minute, but they don't want to. Now, someone has to go into all the > nasty details of making a nice distribution to replace AdaCore. Who will > do it? I don't think anybody will - and I regret it. I would bet that if > such a distribution did appear, AdaCore would revert its position in the > next week. Actualy I will try to take over the appropiate SourceForge project (yes there is one - it relased a MS-Dos version in 2002) and make x86_64 releases for SuSE available. Anyone to join. Martin PS: Sourceforge because it has lots of mirrors - anything released there stays for good. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-30 14:17 ` Martin Krischik @ 2005-10-30 17:44 ` Jeff Creem 2005-10-30 19:53 ` Anh Vo 1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeff Creem @ 2005-10-30 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Krischik wrote: > Am 28.10.2005, 09:41 Uhr, schrieb Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr>: > >> Of course, anyone could do another one. AdaCore has the tools to do >> it in a minute, but they don't want to. Now, someone has to go into >> all the nasty details of making a nice distribution to replace >> AdaCore. Who will do it? I don't think anybody will - and I regret >> it. I would bet that if such a distribution did appear, AdaCore would >> revert its position in the next week. > > > Actualy I will try to take over the appropiate SourceForge project (yes > there is one - it relased a MS-Dos version in 2002) and make x86_64 > releases for SuSE available. > > Anyone to join. > > Martin > > PS: Sourceforge because it has lots of mirrors - anything released > there stays for good. I don't expect that they will reverse their position but I do think that taking over the old sourceforge project is a good thing. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-30 14:17 ` Martin Krischik 2005-10-30 17:44 ` Jeff Creem @ 2005-10-30 19:53 ` Anh Vo 1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Anh Vo @ 2005-10-30 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) I would like join but with a little time basis due to my full time job. AV ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 11:02 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 13:39 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-28 5:10 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-28 11:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-28 5:41 ` Steve Whalen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Steve Whalen @ 2005-10-28 5:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Steve Whalen wrote: > > The FSF CVS tree is NOT equivalent because "we" have to compile usable > > binaries on whichever platform we want to use the Ada compiler on, > > You don't have to compile GNAT yourself if you are using Windows, > or GNU/Linux (or Solaris, I believe), or Mac OS X. That should cover > a number of non-embedded platforms, don't you think? > In fact, Debian/GNU Linux has an integrated set of additional libraries > for use with GNAT. I'm sorry I started out that paragraph with "compiling". I should have skipped that and gone straight to the real problem with the FSF tree releases: >> I can't think of a single time so far when the FSF gcc Ada >> has been as "good" as any of the AdaCore public releases >> because of the difficulty of getting a "stable" version of >> Ada in the CVS repository at the same time the rest of gcc >> was "stable". This is why we will miss the AdaCore GMGPL public releases. The GMGPL code may be buried in the FSF source tree, but the C and C++ languages still drive the FSF "releases". Ada is just along for the ride and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me, but I don't recall a single time since Ada "joined" the FSF tree that the FSF release produced an Ada compiler that was equal in quality to any of the AdaCore public releases. The C++ compiler in an FSF release is usually just fine, but Ada does not have "the clout" to hold up an FSF/gcc release until the Ada portion is "stable". Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 5:10 ` Steve Whalen @ 2005-10-28 11:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-28 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Whalen wrote: > The GMGPL code may be buried in the FSF source tree, but the C > and C++ languages still drive the FSF "releases". Ada is just > along for the ride and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct > me, but I don't recall a single time since Ada "joined" the FSF > tree that the FSF release produced an Ada compiler that was > equal in quality to any of the AdaCore public releases. Is it more about knowing that FSF GNAT is in good shape, or is it about being told by AdaCore that a GNAT is in good shape? For a long time now the the 3.4.x GCCs from the FSF had an Ada compiler that was just fine WRT ACATS. There were issues with NPTL, OS stuff, installation path trouble with mixed ACT and MinGW installations etc. IIRC. > The C++ compiler in an FSF release is usually just fine, The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping a release. Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues? I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 11:18 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak 2005-10-28 12:34 ` none ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Maciej Sobczak @ 2005-10-28 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping > a release. > Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues? > I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"? I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of "good enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever. The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be released. -- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak @ 2005-10-28 12:34 ` none 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Emmanuel Briot ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: none @ 2005-10-28 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Maciej Sobczak > The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to > overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can > also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that > with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be > released. However, I am sure that it came with appropriate user documentation, which you might want to read (in particular the switches section), before assuming something is broken... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak 2005-10-28 12:34 ` none @ 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Emmanuel Briot 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Martin Dowie ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Emmanuel Briot @ 2005-10-28 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw) > The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to > overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can > also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that > with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be > released. However, I am sure that it came with appropriate user documentation, which you might want to read (in particular the switches section), before assuming something is broken... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak 2005-10-28 12:34 ` none 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Emmanuel Briot @ 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Martin Dowie 2005-10-28 14:14 ` Maciej Sobczak 2005-10-28 21:35 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-29 12:25 ` Jeff Creem 4 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2005-10-28 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >> The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping >> a release. >> Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues? >> I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"? > > I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of > "good enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever. > > The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to > overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I > can also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess > that with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would > not be released. Even with "-gnato"???? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Martin Dowie @ 2005-10-28 14:14 ` Maciej Sobczak 0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Maciej Sobczak @ 2005-10-28 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Dowie wrote: >>I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of >>"good enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever. >> >>The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to >>overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I >>can also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess >>that with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would >>not be released. > > Even with "-gnato"???? That's exactly the point - I *can* use -gnato and get the expected functionality (which means errors when overflowing), but I had to learn about this switch the hard way. I've expected the Ada compiler to be compliant *by default* and force me to go through some pain to overcome the rules, not the other way round, so for me this was disappointing. This is where the arbitrary meaning of "good enough" comes into play. There's always appropriate definition of "good enough" that makes a particular product satisfactory or disappointing - depending on what we want to prove. Coming back to the question why g++ is released in spite of the "issues" - it took many years of development to get it more or less compliant to the C++ standard from 1998, so all releases really had/have issues. Not releasing would mean that the community could not gain any new experience - and this experience and resulting feedback is important for the project (and the community) to make progress. -- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Martin Dowie @ 2005-10-28 21:35 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-29 12:25 ` Jeff Creem 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-28 21:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Maciej Sobczak wrote: > The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to > overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can > also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that > with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be > released. With any Ada compiler you can overflow signed integer types without causing an exception. It's called pragma Suppress. The problem is that it's the default behavior with GNAT. GNAT is not, by default, an Ada compiler. You need to add -gnato and -fstack-check to make it one. -- Jeff Carter "Blessed are they who convert their neighbors' oxen, for they shall inhibit their girth." Monty Python's Life of Brian 83 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-28 21:35 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-29 12:25 ` Jeff Creem 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jeff Creem @ 2005-10-29 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >> The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping >> a release. >> Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues? >> I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"? > > > I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of "good > enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever. > > The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to > overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can > also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that > with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be > released. > > So just to be totally clear about what other are saying here... Every version of GNAT from every source has always acted this way. It also is non-standard in terms of the way it does elaboration checking (but better). It also is non-standard in terms of the way it does stack checking. This is not an issue unique to the FSF tree. These are design decisions made by Ada Core Technologies many many years ago. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-27 11:02 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 13:39 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-28 5:10 ` Steve Whalen @ 2005-10-28 5:41 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Steve Whalen @ 2005-10-28 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > I can't find statements that Ada Core is/was commited to releasing > only GMGPL packages of their software. > I do remember reading that they would continue to contribute > their sources to the FSF tree. A quote from a message from Robert Dewar of ACT/AdaCore speaking on behalf of ACT/AdaCore on September 14, 1997 announcing GNAT 3.10p here in comp.lang.ada: "Ada Core Technologies will continue to develop the GNAT technology, and make public releases from time to time reflecting the state of this important developing technology." I agree with the old saying: "Actions speak louder than words". NYU/ACT/AdaCore did _only_ GMGPL "public releases" for 10 years from 1994 through 2004 (not a single GPL only release was done by AdaCore until 2005). The public promise to keep making public releases combined with the fact that for 10 years ACT/AdaCore only did GMGPL releases is why some of us are disappointed in the GPL only public release by AdaCore in 2005. Also, AdaCore was completely consistent for that entire 10 year period in it's announced philosophy which showed AdaCore understood that Ada is _not_ C++ and needs all the help it can get to keep Ada from dying out as a language. Maybe AdaCore now thinks that Ada has hit the big time and no longer needs all the help it can get. From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at least initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a commercial quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT. Now they must buy a non-GNAT Ada compiler, or as has been noted elsewhere, switch to Borland's Delphi (if they like strongly typed languages) or switch to C++, etc. Not a positive step for the Ada language in the long run. Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 5:41 ` Steve Whalen @ 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-28 10:20 ` Niklas Holsti ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-28 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Whalen wrote: > From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do > proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at > least initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a > commercial quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT. I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers? Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining? I'm afraid that those people for whom you show concern may not exist. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2005-10-28 10:20 ` Niklas Holsti 2005-10-28 18:07 ` Michael Bode ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Niklas Holsti @ 2005-10-28 10:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Hyman Rosen wrote: > Steve Whalen wrote: > >> From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do > > > proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at > > least initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a > > commercial quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT. > > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software > written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold > as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers? > Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining? I am not the original poster, but in part answer to your question, I am writing software in Ada that is meant to be sold mainly as a non-customized product to multiple customers. I did "complain" about GNAT GPL 2005 in the sense that I voted for some other GNAT (that is, a GMGPL GNAT) to be the Debian Ada compiler. But I see that GNAT GPL 2005 has many advantages, perhaps most importantly less work for the Debian Ada team. I am prepared to use some of my own effort and money to have a non-GPL compiler, for example the FSF GNAT. I am also experimenting with the Janus/Ada compiler. The price of the Aonix compiler would be a significant hurdle for me and GNAT Pro is beyond my ceiling at this time. So, that's one data-point for you. As I recall, some of the others who voted for a GMGPL Debian compiler were in the same position. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ . ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-28 10:20 ` Niklas Holsti @ 2005-10-28 18:07 ` Michael Bode 2005-10-31 14:58 ` Marc A. Criley ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2005-10-28 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes: > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software > written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold > as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers? > Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining? I'm just working on software that is meant to be distributed non-customized to multiple customers. It is GUI for some industrial hardware that we sell. It is not yet deceided if it will be sold or given away for free (as in beer). But distributing it with sources gives my management headaches. One reason is that some adventurous customer with GNAT could create a version that is able to damage the hardware. This is a one programmer project and that alone is enough to prevent me from being eligible as a AdaCore customer. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-28 10:20 ` Niklas Holsti 2005-10-28 18:07 ` Michael Bode @ 2005-10-31 14:58 ` Marc A. Criley 2005-11-01 16:54 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2005-11-02 17:36 ` Steffen Huber 4 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2005-10-31 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Hyman Rosen wrote: > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software > written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold > as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers? > Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining? > > I'm afraid that those people for whom you show concern may not > exist. You may be right. Or they simply may not hang around here. There are a few here that have already stated that their intent is to actually produce Ada-implemented "shrinkwrap" product, and I'll admit I count myself among them. For many of us, though, it's still in the "intent" mode, and we're working hard on it whenever we can slip in the time, so as to hopefully someday get into the "shipping" mode :-) For myself, I've "come to an understanding" (fully compliant with the GPL) with the GNAT GPL edition and what the GPL allows and disallows that makes it a workable development platform for me. It comes down to the "AdaCore model", i.e., sell support and make the product so useful that your customer wouldn't think of aiding their competitors by giving them a copy! -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-31 14:58 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2005-11-01 16:54 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2005-11-01 16:40 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-11-02 17:36 ` Steffen Huber 4 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2005-11-01 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Hyman Rosen wrote: > Steve Whalen wrote: >> From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do >> proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at least >> initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a commercial >> quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT. > > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software written > in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold as a > non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers? Yes. I wrote one (not completely on my own) for a Danish publishing house a few years ago. I don't know how well it sold, but it _was_ sold shrink-wrapped with a nice printed manual. > Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining? Yes. And yes. - But it is a few years ago. My current work will be distributed under an Open Source license, but I would like to have the freedom to advice costumers to select Ada even for closed source products. Jacob -- "... there may be many others, but they haven't been discovered" -- Tom Lehrer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-11-01 16:54 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2005-11-01 16:40 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-11-02 16:15 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 79+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-11-01 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: > My current work will be > distributed under an Open Source license, but I would like to have the > freedom to advice costumers to select Ada even for closed source > products. Do you mean you'd like to advise your customers to select the free GMGPL GNAT (as opposed to Ada) for closed source products? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-11-01 16:40 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-11-02 16:15 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2005-11-02 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: >> My current work will be distributed under an Open Source license, >> but I would like to have the freedom to advice costumers to select >> Ada even for closed source products. > > Do you mean you'd like to advise your customers to select the free > GMGPL GNAT (as opposed to Ada) for closed source products? Technically, no, but in some practical cases, yes. The specific choice of the Ada compiler doesn't matter that much to me. What matters is if it works for the target platforms at an acceptable cost for the specific project. For my only previous shrink-wrap project, I am pretty sure we used Aonix for compiling the delivered version. The project budget wasn't large enough to pay for GNAT/pro, and we only had to deliver a Microsoft version of the application. Greetings, Jacob -- xsnow | xshovel > /dev/null ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2005-11-01 16:54 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2005-11-02 17:36 ` Steffen Huber 2005-11-02 19:08 ` Martin Dowie 2005-11-02 19:09 ` Stefan Bellon 4 siblings, 2 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Steffen Huber @ 2005-11-02 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Hyman Rosen wrote: > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software > written in Ada? http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html > That is, a program written in Ada which is sold > as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers? > Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining? Well, as I'm still stuck with a port of GNAT 3.03, I have very little to complain...and ACT (of course) were never interested in distributing a suitable GNAT for my OS of choice anyway. Steffen -- Steffen Huber hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-11-02 17:36 ` Steffen Huber @ 2005-11-02 19:08 ` Martin Dowie 2005-11-02 19:09 ` Stefan Bellon 1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2005-11-02 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Steffen Huber wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > >> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software >> written in Ada? > > > http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html No mention of Ada or any Ada-related links though... so how can we tell? :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-11-02 17:36 ` Steffen Huber 2005-11-02 19:08 ` Martin Dowie @ 2005-11-02 19:09 ` Stefan Bellon 1 sibling, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Stefan Bellon @ 2005-11-02 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Steffen Huber wrote: > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software > > written in Ada? > > http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html A nice piece of software that is (I only own the older CDBurn, but anyway). :-) Well, we (i.e. http://www.bauhaus-tec.com/) develop our software almost entirely in Ada as well. -- Dipl.-Inf. Stefan Bellon Bauhaus Software Technologies | TTI GmbH TGZ Softwareanalysen c/o ISTE Tel.: +49 711 78 16 221 | Universitätsstraße 38 Fax.: +49 711 78 16 380 | 70569 Stuttgart ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 15:44 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 16:35 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-25 20:47 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-10-28 18:52 ` Larry Kilgallen 2005-11-02 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen 3 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2005-10-28 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <psl8f.23408$dW6.22731@trndny09>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes: > Steve Whalen wrote: >> From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do > > proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at > > least initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a > > commercial quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT. > > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software > written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold > as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers? http://www.ljk.com/ljk/ljk_security.html > Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Yes. > Are they complaining? We don't use GNAT. > I'm afraid that those people for whom you show concern may not exist. Of course you know that proving their non-existence is not possible :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-25 15:44 ` Samuel Tardieu ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-28 18:52 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2005-11-02 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen 3 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2005-11-02 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dkb2s0$pth$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes: > Steffen Huber wrote: >> Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >>> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software >>> written in Ada? >> >> >> http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html > > No mention of Ada or any Ada-related links though... so how can we tell? :-) Presumably the listed features are those of primary importance to would-be purchasers. The marketplace distinguishes products by feature sets. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades 2005-10-07 11:57 ` Simon Clubley 2005-10-07 12:29 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-07 12:50 ` Jeff Creem @ 2005-10-07 23:11 ` Björn Persson 2 siblings, 0 replies; 79+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-10-07 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Clubley wrote: > I think that Ada is pretty much in the same > situation as Theora, in that we want people to adopt it instead of other > currently more popular alternatives and that the overriding requirement > should be to keep the barrier to using Ada as low as possible. My thoughts exactly! -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 79+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-02 21:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 79+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-10-04 20:15 GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades Marc A. Criley 2005-10-05 8:04 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 8:58 ` michael bode 2005-10-05 9:39 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-05 11:10 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 12:50 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 14:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 15:38 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-05 16:22 ` Poul-Erik Andreasen 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-10-13 21:13 ` wojtek 2005-10-05 14:06 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2005-10-05 15:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-05 21:25 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-06 1:18 ` David Trudgett 2005-10-06 7:18 ` David Trudgett 2005-10-06 8:03 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-06 8:53 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-05 12:25 ` Marc A. Criley 2005-10-05 18:17 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-05 18:28 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-06 18:20 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-06 19:20 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-06 22:27 ` Simon Wright 2005-10-07 5:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-07 5:54 ` Simon Wright 2005-10-07 18:43 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-08 6:18 ` Simon Wright 2005-10-07 11:57 ` Simon Clubley 2005-10-07 12:29 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-07 12:50 ` Jeff Creem 2005-10-25 15:44 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 16:35 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-26 13:43 ` Martin Krischik 2005-10-25 20:47 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-25 21:13 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 22:29 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-25 22:41 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-26 10:53 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-26 10:12 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-27 11:02 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 13:39 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-27 14:05 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 14:25 ` Pascal Obry 2005-10-27 15:50 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 16:59 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-27 17:09 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 17:33 ` Pascal Obry 2005-10-27 19:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-27 19:49 ` Szymon Guz 2005-10-27 19:14 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-28 6:41 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen 2005-10-30 14:17 ` Martin Krischik 2005-10-30 17:44 ` Jeff Creem 2005-10-30 19:53 ` Anh Vo 2005-10-28 5:10 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-28 11:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-10-28 11:47 ` Maciej Sobczak 2005-10-28 12:34 ` none 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Emmanuel Briot 2005-10-28 12:35 ` Martin Dowie 2005-10-28 14:14 ` Maciej Sobczak 2005-10-28 21:35 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-29 12:25 ` Jeff Creem 2005-10-28 5:41 ` Steve Whalen 2005-10-28 8:38 ` Hyman Rosen 2005-10-28 10:20 ` Niklas Holsti 2005-10-28 18:07 ` Michael Bode 2005-10-31 14:58 ` Marc A. Criley 2005-11-01 16:54 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2005-11-01 16:40 ` Georg Bauhaus 2005-11-02 16:15 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2005-11-02 17:36 ` Steffen Huber 2005-11-02 19:08 ` Martin Dowie 2005-11-02 19:09 ` Stefan Bellon 2005-10-28 18:52 ` Larry Kilgallen 2005-11-02 21:14 ` Larry Kilgallen 2005-10-07 23:11 ` Björn Persson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox