From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,915d37e7b8e0ec69 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Steve Whalen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: and visual library once again Date: 23 Oct 2005 00:39:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1130053169.518277.86690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <4358067B.50208@obry.net> <43580A43.4050507@obry.net> <1129861178.782874.87870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129927622.825849.56200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1130045670.471015.25650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1TF6f.1787$dW6.1751@trndny09> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.238.135.165 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1130053175 25026 127.0.0.1 (23 Oct 2005 07:39:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:39:35 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.238.135.165; posting-account=GBMmzA0AAABrZ0dHOASa3b2Cdf-RliH9 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5893 Date: 2005-10-23T00:39:29-07:00 List-Id: 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