Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> > Please follow my other posts :-). Regarding what I'd call "the
> > environment", like bindings to a portable GUI toolkit or the OS.
> 
> OK. I have 2 GMGPL versions of GtkAda (2.2.0 and 2.4.0) and a GMGPL
> version of GNAT (MinGW 3.4.2) on my computer at the moment. (These are
> not the only compilers or bindings, just the ones that seem relevant
> to this discussion.) GtkAda is a portable GUI toolkit and GNAT comes
> with GMGPL bindings to the OS. All were free in terms of money. So I
> don't see what your complaint is.

That ACT denies they can remember that ever GtkAda was distributed a
GMGPL. That is about all and at the core of all that. You understand
that now? Even the older versions from the ACT site are now supposed
to be under GPL ONLY, even if they didn't change from the way they
very (as we remember) distributed as GMGPL.

> It's also clear that ACT cannot legally impose the GPL on their
> compilers the way they have. The DOD contract that resulted in GNAT
> was to create an Ada-95 compiler that is free (in both senses of the

Make me laugh. I got flamed repeatedly because I only suggested that
the GMGPL -> GPL transition might not have been quite such a clear cut
right of ACT to do and because I wanted to create "unfree programs"
with "AdaCore's tools".

> word) and may be used to create un-free programs. (These requirements
> resulted in the GMGPL.) As there is no Ada-0X standard yet, there can
> be no Ada-0X compilers yet, and in fact the ACT GPL compilers are
> Ada-95 compilers that implement some of the features of the Ada-0X
> draft only as an option. It seems ACT is calling them "200[5|6]" to
> try to get around the requirements of the contract, but it's clear
> that these are Ada-95 compilers with some extra features optionally
> available, and so in violation of the contract. (I wonder who at the
> DOD one would contact about this, since the AJPO no longer exists.)

I rejoice, that you of all people here have found such clear words on
that issue. I've a comment and a suggestion though:

 (1) The present headaches revolve around the changing license for
     libraries like GtkAda and Florist (to just name 2). The FSF
     compiler, if maintained properly, would suffice for most people
     as Ada 95 compiler. So the pressure to argue against Gnat GPL has
     somewhat diminished from a purely practical point of view.

 (2) I'm not sure wether this is only rumor, but I seem to remember
     something, that ACT has discharged its obliagation of keeping the
     compiler (a compiler) free by helping the FSF getting it back
     into the Gcc source tree.

If of course you would find somebody at the DOD to contact, I think it
would at least be intresting to see what exactly will happen. (This is
out of my league, but sometimes it is entertaining an edifying to see
the big players move).

> 
> Of course, IANAL.

IANAL2.

Regards -- Markus