Re: and visual library once again

["Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com>]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
> > GNAT would be a "perfect" example only if AdaCore were still respecting
> > the wishes of the people who put up the money (the DOD), who insisted
> > on the GMGPL for the runtime libraries of the GNAT compiler.
>
> They received a contract for a project and they fulfilled it.
> Whatever wishes may be involved are irrelevant. And actually,
> the original contract was deliberately for less than the whole
> of the Ada standard precisely to avoid damaging the business of
> other Ada vendors. If anything, by releasing a GPL-only runtime,
> AdaCore is honoring that original intent.

I agree that AdaCore fulfilled the contract and are free to do what
they want. I understand that the new Ada 2005 compiler can be
considered "freer" from the perspective of the software. However the
new Ada 2005 compiler is "less free" from the perspective of the _user_
of the software, since it cannot be used to produce proprietary, closed
source, non-GPL software.

I disagree that "they are honoring that original intent" since the
original intent to protect the other Ada vendors was accomplished by
the limited size of the investment made by the DOD. It was also a very
clear intent of both the DOD and the GNAT developers to have GNAT be an
Ada compiler capable of producing proprietary closed source programs.
An even more important "intent" of the GNAT project was to help
popularize Ada even though the DOD was dropping it's "Ada mandate".

I agree that "Whatever wishes may be involved are irrelevant.". They
are legally irrelevant. They are NOT irrelevant to the future of Ada as
a language.

AdaCore by it's actions is directly contradicting many statements made
by the AdaCore founders here on comp.lang.ada over the last 5 to 10
years.  Their statements (many quite impassioned) showed they
understood the power of having a free, high quality, up to date, easily
installed Ada compiler capable of producing proprietary software as a
means of proselytizing the Ada language. AdaCore at the time also
pointed out that since they had to package up the software for their
supported customers anyway, releasing the "public" versions was NOT an
issue of cost.

Since AdaCore hasn't explained _why_ they changed from GMGPL to GPL in
the runtime for their "free" compiler, they've created unnecessary FUD
about the Ada language. Whether they did it in an attempt to get more
$$$ or they are bowing to pressure from other Ada vendors, or exactly
why they did it, is also irrelevant.  But the change _does_ hurt the
Ada language, which may not be dead, but it sure isn't growing in
popularity outside of the universe of those who already know it's
value.  Helping to kill a dying language was NOT the DOD's intent when
it dropped the "Ada mandate" and created the GNAT project.

Steve