Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Yves Bailly]

Hello all,

I just read the thread "Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status
of GtkAda 2.4.0", in which a statement from Dmitry A. Kazakov kept
my attention, quoting:
"GtkAda could be reworked from scratch. It must be boring and a lot of 
work, but not much complex."

Well, what about a binding to the Qt C++ library? Something more "subtle"
than the one currently available at
http://freehost07.websamba.com/guibuilder/
...in which the type hierarchy doesn't exactly matches the one from the
library. It would also make use of Ada2005 new features.

So here's the poll: who would be interested in such a binding, who would
be interested in being able to write GUI code using a Qt-like API?

Corollary: who would be ready to help in such a huge (but "not much
complex") project? ;-)

Best regards,

-- 
(o< | Yves Bailly  : http://kafka-fr.net   | -o)
//\ | Linux Dijon  : http://www.coagul.org | //\
\_/ |                                      | \_/`

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[vgodunko]

>
> So here's the poll: who would be interested in such a binding, who would
> be interested in being able to write GUI code using a Qt-like API?
>
> Corollary: who would be ready to help in such a huge (but "not much
> complex") project? ;-)
> 
We are have intrest in such bindings and planning try to do this.

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Yves Bailly wrote:

> So here's the poll: who would be interested in such a binding, who would
> be interested in being able to write GUI code using a Qt-like API?

One here.

> Corollary: who would be ready to help in such a huge (but "not much
> complex") project? ;-)

Alas, I can't volunteer right now :)

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Preben Randhol]

Yves Bailly <kafka.fr@laposte.net> wrote on 28/07/2006 (01:15) :
> Hello all,
> 
> I just read the thread "Answer of Request to AdaCore on licensing Status
> of GtkAda 2.4.0", in which a statement from Dmitry A. Kazakov kept
> my attention, quoting:
> "GtkAda could be reworked from scratch. It must be boring and a lot of 
> work, but not much complex."

QT is GPL unless you buy a license.

> So here's the poll: who would be interested in such a binding, who would
> be interested in being able to write GUI code using a Qt-like API?

Binding are generally good. If it is to redo GtkAda as OpenGtkAda or
FreeGtkAda I would like to see something higher level than GtkAda. I
mean something that integrates much tighter with Ada where one can use
Ada2005 container directly and not have to use glibc and duplicate your
data to show them.

> Corollary: who would be ready to help in such a huge (but "not much
> complex") project? ;-)

Sorry, I've start using Python (at work and home) so I don't have time.
I have already contributed to the GtkAda which now is GPL. Python and
Ada are languages at opposing ends (dynamic vs static) so a lot is
different, but that Ada lacks that Python has is batteries. I mean lots
and lots of libraries to get things done. When Ada goes GPL only it make
only a new hole in a sinking ship.

But the real issue isn't if the GtkAda is GPL or not as long as the GNAT
compiler only can be used to make GPL code then it really doesn't matter
what license your library has. 

Preben

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[michael bode]

Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes:

> But the real issue isn't if the GtkAda is GPL or not as long as the GNAT
> compiler only can be used to make GPL code then it really doesn't matter
> what license your library has. 

But I think this is quite clear: gnat from FSF still has the linking
exception. GCC-GNAT 4.1 is available for some Linux distributions
(MacOS X?) and I think MinGW gnat 3.4.5 is available for Windows.

So the problem are some libraries the most important beeing some
decent multiplatform GUI lib.

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Preben Randhol]

michael bode <michael.bode@laserline.de> wrote on 28/07/2006 (12:30) :
> But I think this is quite clear: gnat from FSF still has the linking
> exception. GCC-GNAT 4.1 is available for some Linux distributions
> (MacOS X?) and I think MinGW gnat 3.4.5 is available for Windows.

So it means that what ACT contributes to FSF (gcc) is GMGPL, while what
they package themselves is GPL?

I'm really getting confused about the license mess now... What is the
license in Debian for gnat-4.1 ?

Preben

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Simon Clubley]

In article <mailman.8.1154082903.32700.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>, Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes:
> michael bode <michael.bode@laserline.de> wrote on 28/07/2006 (12:30) :
>> But I think this is quite clear: gnat from FSF still has the linking
>> exception. GCC-GNAT 4.1 is available for some Linux distributions
>> (MacOS X?) and I think MinGW gnat 3.4.5 is available for Windows.
> 
> So it means that what ACT contributes to FSF (gcc) is GMGPL, while what
> they package themselves is GPL?
> 

Yes, that's right. If you pull a FSF GCC distribution, with a FSF version
number, from a FSF server, it's my understanding that the Ada RTL component
is licensed under the GMGPL.

A theoretical concern that I had a few weeks ago was could ACT, at a later
date, move the GNAT.* packages in the FSF distribution to been GPL only on
the basis that they were not part of the Ada 95 standard, and hence, like
GtkAda, ACT was free to do with them whatever they wanted to do ?

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
If Google's motto is "don't be evil", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ?

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Jeffrey Creem]

Simon Clubley wrote:
> In article <mailman.8.1154082903.32700.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>, Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes:
> 
>>michael bode <michael.bode@laserline.de> wrote on 28/07/2006 (12:30) :
>>
>>>But I think this is quite clear: gnat from FSF still has the linking
>>>exception. GCC-GNAT 4.1 is available for some Linux distributions
>>>(MacOS X?) and I think MinGW gnat 3.4.5 is available for Windows.
>>
>>So it means that what ACT contributes to FSF (gcc) is GMGPL, while what
>>they package themselves is GPL?
>>
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right. If you pull a FSF GCC distribution, with a FSF version
> number, from a FSF server, it's my understanding that the Ada RTL component
> is licensed under the GMGPL.
> 
> A theoretical concern that I had a few weeks ago was could ACT, at a later
> date, move the GNAT.* packages in the FSF distribution to been GPL only on
> the basis that they were not part of the Ada 95 standard, and hence, like
> GtkAda, ACT was free to do with them whatever they wanted to do ?
> 
> Simon.
> 


I would expect some discussion on the GCC group before such a move 
happens. For items in the actual FSF GCC tree, ACT has to assign 
copyright to the FSF. So, while they are always free to stop 
contributing, I don't think AdaCore by themselves can change the license 
terms on items pulled from the FSF tree.

Of course, the FSF could make a change like that. While AdaCore's 
actions are (hopefully) driven by profit motives, FSF's motives are 
simply trying to ensure an end state where software is "Free" (in a GPL 
sense). So they could certainly change future releases to pure GPL for 
their own reasons (and of course a proprietary vendor could change 
future license terms to require something unacceptable in future 
versions too). At least with open source and either very shallow pockets 
(lawsuit proof) or fairly deep pockets (laywer  up), one could branch 
from the last set of acceptable license terms...

In any case, on the original point of this thread, it is hard to 
understand why we would abandon GtkAda for Qt4Ada when Qt itself is GPL 
   without exception on some platforms.

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/downloads/qt/windows

So, how would the community be any better off? Yes you can buy a 
commercial license for it.. But of course you can by GtkAda from AdaCore 
too.

Now, having an alternate or additional QUI library support is not a bad 
thing (perhaps it is even a good thing) but I don't think QT really 
solves the license problems that most people are worrying about.

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes:

Jeffrey> Of course, the FSF could make a change like that. While
Jeffrey> AdaCore's actions are (hopefully) driven by profit motives,
Jeffrey> FSF's motives are simply trying to ensure an end state where
Jeffrey> software is "Free" (in a GPL sense). So they could certainly
Jeffrey> change future releases to pure GPL for their own reasons

Exactly. But I would not understand if they did that for the GNAT
library and not for the C++ STL. Why restrict the use of the GNU Ada
compiler when the use of the GNU C++ compiler isn't?

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Martin Krischik]

Yves Bailly wrote:

> Well, what about a binding to the Qt C++ library? Something more "subtle"
> than the one currently available at
> http://freehost07.websamba.com/guibuilder/
> ...in which the type hierarchy doesn't exactly matches the one from the
> library. It would also make use of Ada2005 new features.
> 
> So here's the poll: who would be interested in such a binding, who would
> be interested in being able to write GUI code using a Qt-like API?

Here I prefer Qt over Gtk anyway. By far more stable (putting on my flame
proof suit).

> Corollary: who would be ready to help in such a huge (but "not much
> complex") project? ;-)

I package it when it is ready.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 10:08 -0400, Jeffrey Creem wrote:

>  I don't think QT really 
> solves the license problems that most people are worrying about.

QT might solve a few pricing problems though, if there are any,
as perhaps Trolltech doesn't sell to Boeing-budget organizations
only.

Also, a new binding to a portable GUI library is an opportunity
to provide one that can be used with any Ada compiler, like CLAW
for Windows, and like the Ada standard libraries.

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Jeffrey Creem]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 10:08 -0400, Jeffrey Creem wrote:
> 
> 
>> I don't think QT really 
>>solves the license problems that most people are worrying about.
> 
> 
> QT might solve a few pricing problems though, if there are any,
> as perhaps Trolltech doesn't sell to Boeing-budget organizations
> only.
> 

Doesn't look like it really solves the problem all that much. If you 
want one platform (e.g. just linux or Just windows) it costs $3300 per 
developer for Qt. ($6600 per developer if you want to target three 
platforms).

This is probably more expensive for a 5 seat than GtkAda (I don't have 
any quotes for GtkAda so who knows...Also it may be that you can't get 
GtkAda from AdaCore without also getting GNAT first).

Still, this is not the $90 tool that everyone seems to think that 
everyone else is using.

Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 15:10 -0400, Jeffrey Creem wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:


> > QT might solve a few pricing problems though, if there are any,
> > as perhaps Trolltech doesn't sell to Boeing-budget organizations
> > only.
> > 

Considering that most request for a GMGPL GUI solution came from
small businesses, then by
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/pricing/licensing/smallbusiness

>  If you 
> want one platform (e.g. just linux or Just windows) it costs $3300 per 
> developer for Qt.

(1 - 0.65) * €2630 ~> $1170  (if "at a 65% discount" means that)

That's initial discount, though.

> Still, this is not the $90 tool that everyone seems to think that 
> everyone else is using.

Yes, still a fair bit of money for a self-employed programmer,
for example. Seems like a good starting point for a community
solution (or for selling free software).