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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,77a3432eb1460969,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!sn-xt-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Jason C. Wells" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: License and Compiler Confusion Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:46:58 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <122asvvbd4aru87@corp.supernews.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3605 Date: 2006-03-25T08:46:58-08:00 List-Id: I am a FreeBSD user. I was thinking of picking up a language and I am considering Ada. I came across this: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/lang/gnat/pkg-descr Binaries built with this version of compiler are covered by the GPL license. Use the Ada compiler bundled with GCC 4.0 and subsequent for LGPL licensing. I also read the FAQ at adacore: https://libre2.adacore.com/dynamic/gnat_faq.html#licensing I prefer to use a compiler that doesn't encumber my programs with any terms. So I am confused by seemingly contradictory statements. One source says I can't use gnat without encumbering my programs. Another source says I can use gcc and my programs won't be encumbered. Are gcc and gnat two different pieces of software? I was under the impression that gnat was simply gcc with Ada related tweaks. Can I write Ada 2005 programs without GPL-ing my code using a FOSS compiler? How? Gnat-3.15 doesn't confuse me. I would use that except I suppose that if I am getting started I should write in the Ada 2005 spec rather than the 95 spec. Thanks, Jason C. Wells