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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.183.6.194 with SMTP id cw2mr36375804obd.7.1415795500821; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:31:40 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.84.21 with SMTP id k21mr149677qgd.6.1415795500771; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:31:40 -0800 (PST) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!r10no1821786igi.0!news-out.google.com!u1ni10qah.0!nntp.google.com!i13no1066068qae.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:31:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1415791954.7960.59.camel@obry.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.250.123.221; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.250.123.221 References: <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam> <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com> <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad> <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> <1415776387.7960.41.camel@obry.net> <4b21e212-7744-433a-a939-a82ef63ce8cc@googlegroups.com> <1415791954.7960.59.camel@obry.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2c66b776-777b-4530-a1a3-21337cefab85@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? From: David Botton Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:31:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190469 Date: 2014-11-12T04:31:40-08:00 List-Id: > But then if the FSF compiler is used to create Open Source software > that's fine. But then again, what's wrong with the GPL one? At the end > you have an Open Source software :) Because for businesses that doesn't work. Most people like me who are happy to write and share GMGPL and GPL software are often making a living for companies that _WILL NOT_ allow GPL executables with their corporate IP mixed in. So a GPL compiler _kills_ Ada use for everyone but those developing OS tools or other such projects. We want to advocate Ada and the GPL on the runtime _HURTS_ it not helps it. > I understand that GNAT FSF can be used for closed sources software, but > again how many they are? More than you can ever imagine. People are not posting their closed source use, but I can tell you that I've written more closed source Ada than public and so have most here. > I'm not saying there is nothing, but as I said > in my first post the GPL do cover the most majority of Ada projects > needs. That is _COMPLETELY_ false information and the same ridiculous argument I've heard from AdaCore trying to justify their shortsighted and harmful decision to GPL Virus the compiler and make it Shareware. They turned GNAT in to a toy. The _reality_ is that the GPL compiler killed tons of __GPL__ projects and even more GMGPL projects. Add to that the the GPL compiler has completely closed down all advocacy of Ada for the business world. I'm going to make sure that changes :) hopefully with AdaCore, but even if without. David Botton