Conflicting statements about GPS?

Conflicting statements about GPS?

[John Stoneham]

I am, surely like most on this ng who use gnat, eagerly awaiting the
any-week-now release of GPS. However, after combing through what I could
find as "official" statements about it (mainly from Robert Dewar), I have
become concerned. One statement clearly emphasised that GPS was "Free
Software", which would benefit from the input of many users, and this raised
my hopes. But the only statements regarding it's release that I could find
referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free.

Maybe I'm mistaken about the "Free Software" reference, but I don't believe
it can be properly labled as such if it is only offered "free" to paying
customers. Nor do I think it proper to call it "Free Software" if it is only
intended to be offered for free after a major upgrade to the paying
customers, and the "free" part is the old version made freely available
after a year or more. But maybe that's just me.

And maybe I'm wrong about what the process is going to be, but there is
nothing to tell me otherwise so far. So Mr. Dewar, please correct me if I'm
wrong. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering.

--
John Stoneham
(to email, reverse the domain)

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "John" == John Stoneham <captnjameskirk@moc.oohay> writes:

John> But the only statements regarding it's release that I could find
John> referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free.

What makes you think that Gnat Pro is not Free Software?

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

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Preben Randhol]

John Stoneham wrote:
> I am, surely like most on this ng who use gnat, eagerly awaiting the
> any-week-now release of GPS. However, after combing through what I could
> find as "official" statements about it (mainly from Robert Dewar), I have
> become concerned. One statement clearly emphasised that GPS was "Free
> Software", which would benefit from the input of many users, and this raised
> my hopes. But the only statements regarding it's release that I could find
> referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free.

It is Free but not gratis (no cost) as it is supported software. I'm
only hoping that there will be a public release (gratis, not supported)
later of GPS like they do with the Gnat compiler.

> to paying customers. Nor do I think it proper to call it "Free
> Software" if it is only intended to be offered for free after a major
> upgrade to the paying customers, and the "free" part is the old
> version made freely available after a year or more. But maybe that's
> just me.

Yes I think so. Read on the definition of Free Software at http://www.fsf.org/

Preben
-- 
This is Ada land. On quiet nights you can hear C programmers debug.

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[John Stoneham]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnar2emk.2cj.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> John Stoneham wrote:
> > I am, surely like most on this ng who use gnat, eagerly awaiting the
> > any-week-now release of GPS. However, after combing through what I could
> > find as "official" statements about it (mainly from Robert Dewar), I
have
> > become concerned. One statement clearly emphasised that GPS was "Free
> > Software", which would benefit from the input of many users, and this
raised
> > my hopes. But the only statements regarding it's release that I could
find
> > referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free.
>
> It is Free but not gratis (no cost) as it is supported software. I'm
> only hoping that there will be a public release (gratis, not supported)
> later of GPS like they do with the Gnat compiler.
>
> > to paying customers. Nor do I think it proper to call it "Free
> > Software" if it is only intended to be offered for free after a major
> > upgrade to the paying customers, and the "free" part is the old
> > version made freely available after a year or more. But maybe that's
> > just me.
>
> Yes I think so. Read on the definition of Free Software at
http://www.fsf.org/
>
> Preben


From www.fsf.org and the definition of Free Software:

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the
source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms."

So, in order for GPS to be considered "Free Software", any user of GPS
should be able to make copies available for others (freedom 2), or make
improvements to the source code and redistribute that (freedom 3). If the
copies given to Gnat Pro users are restricted from free distribution to
others, then it is not "Free Software".

Note that there is nothing in the definition of "Free Software" that
prevents ACT from charging for it. They just can't restrict its distribution
to only paying customers and still call it "Free Software". Probably the
best example of this senario is Red Hat. They charge for their Linux OS and
service, but it's freely available for download to anyone who wants it, even
the most bleeding edge versions. They don't hold back and release Red Hat
7.0 to the public while selling 9.0 and restricting it's distribution.

I think it is perfectly acceptable for ACT to restrict GPS to paying
customers and release old versions to the public for free, but I don't think
it's acceptable for ACT to call GPS "Free Software" from the very beginning
if that is their plan. It is misleading and a distortion of the definition
of Free Software.

-- John

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Preben Randhol]

John Stoneham wrote:
> 
> 
> From www.fsf.org and the definition of Free Software:
> 
> "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
> study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
> kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
> 
>     * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>     * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
> (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>     * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> (freedom 2).
>     * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the
> source code is a precondition for this.
> A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms."
> 
> So, in order for GPS to be considered "Free Software", any user of GPS
> should be able to make copies available for others (freedom 2), or make
> improvements to the source code and redistribute that (freedom 3). If the
> copies given to Gnat Pro users are restricted from free distribution to
> others, then it is not "Free Software".

Who says it is restricted?

> Note that there is nothing in the definition of "Free Software" that
> prevents ACT from charging for it. They just can't restrict its distribution
> to only paying customers and still call it "Free Software". Probably the

Of course they can. However they cannot restrict their customers from
distributing the software, as I understand it.

> best example of this senario is Red Hat. They charge for their Linux OS and
> service, but it's freely available for download to anyone who wants it, even
> the most bleeding edge versions. They don't hold back and release Red Hat
> 7.0 to the public while selling 9.0 and restricting it's distribution.

Why not? Suse don't distribute ISO-images of their distribution.
Neither are they required to do this.

> I think it is perfectly acceptable for ACT to restrict GPS to paying
> customers and release old versions to the public for free, but I don't think
> it's acceptable for ACT to call GPS "Free Software" from the very beginning
> if that is their plan. It is misleading and a distortion of the definition
> of Free Software.

But they are following the 4 freedoms you quoted so I don't see your
point. I think you have the misconception that Free Software must be
distributed to the public, this is not a requirement. I can make a
program and only give it to friends and still call it Free Software. I
cannot restrict my friends in what they want to do with the program as
stated above, though. There is no requirements that I have to put it out to
the public unless I want to. The freedoms are related to the users of
the software not the developers.

Regards,
Preben
-- 
This is Ada95 land. On quiet nights you can hear C programmers debug.

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Karel Miklav]

If GPS is kind-a free, i'd really love to hear where can I download it 
from, or if there is a friend who'd like to share...

Regards, Karel



Preben Randhol wrote:
> John Stoneham wrote:
> 
>>
>>From www.fsf.org and the definition of Free Software:
>>
>>"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
>>study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
>>kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
>>
>>    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>>    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
>>(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>>    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>>(freedom 2).
>>    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
>>the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the
>>source code is a precondition for this.
>>A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms."
>>
>>So, in order for GPS to be considered "Free Software", any user of GPS
>>should be able to make copies available for others (freedom 2), or make
>>improvements to the source code and redistribute that (freedom 3). If the
>>copies given to Gnat Pro users are restricted from free distribution to
>>others, then it is not "Free Software".
> 
> 
> Who says it is restricted?
> 
> 
>>Note that there is nothing in the definition of "Free Software" that
>>prevents ACT from charging for it. They just can't restrict its distribution
>>to only paying customers and still call it "Free Software". Probably the
> 
> 
> Of course they can. However they cannot restrict their customers from
> distributing the software, as I understand it.
> 
> 
>>best example of this senario is Red Hat. They charge for their Linux OS and
>>service, but it's freely available for download to anyone who wants it, even
>>the most bleeding edge versions. They don't hold back and release Red Hat
>>7.0 to the public while selling 9.0 and restricting it's distribution.
> 
> 
> Why not? Suse don't distribute ISO-images of their distribution.
> Neither are they required to do this.
> 
> 
>>I think it is perfectly acceptable for ACT to restrict GPS to paying
>>customers and release old versions to the public for free, but I don't think
>>it's acceptable for ACT to call GPS "Free Software" from the very beginning
>>if that is their plan. It is misleading and a distortion of the definition
>>of Free Software.
> 
> 
> But they are following the 4 freedoms you quoted so I don't see your
> point. I think you have the misconception that Free Software must be
> distributed to the public, this is not a requirement. I can make a
> program and only give it to friends and still call it Free Software. I
> cannot restrict my friends in what they want to do with the program as
> stated above, though. There is no requirements that I have to put it out to
> the public unless I want to. The freedoms are related to the users of
> the software not the developers.
> 
> Regards,
> Preben

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Preben Randhol]

Karel Miklav wrote:
> If GPS is kind-a free, i'd really love to hear where can I download it 
> from, or if there is a friend who'd like to share...

It isn't available yet.

Preben
-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://libre.act-europe.fr/Software_Matters/02-C_pitfalls.pdf

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Mark Johnson]

John Stoneham wrote:
> 
> I am, surely like most on this ng who use gnat, eagerly awaiting the
> any-week-now release of GPS. However, after combing through what I could
> find as "official" statements about it (mainly from Robert Dewar), I have
> become concerned. One statement clearly emphasised that GPS was "Free
> Software", which would benefit from the input of many users, and this raised
> my hopes. But the only statements regarding it's release that I could find
> referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free.
> 
Well, as a beta tester of GPS, there is nothing I have received from ACT
to indicate that GPS would not be made freely available. We have a copy
under our support contract and the beta agreement. We have not yet asked
for source code - we are quite willing to wait until it is released -
thank you.

> Maybe I'm mistaken about the "Free Software" reference, but I don't believe
> it can be properly labled as such if it is only offered "free" to paying
> customers. Nor do I think it proper to call it "Free Software" if it is only
> intended to be offered for free after a major upgrade to the paying
> customers, and the "free" part is the old version made freely available
> after a year or more. But maybe that's just me.
> 
Eh? I guess you should read some of the other responses which more
clearly describes what is and is not allowed under the GPL. Let's say I
get a copy of the source to GNAT 3.15a1 (under our service contract),
ACT does not restrict redistribution. I can choose to freely make it
available (e.g., to my customer, others) or not. That meets the license
restrictions of the GPL.

> And maybe I'm wrong about what the process is going to be, but there is
> nothing to tell me otherwise so far. So Mr. Dewar, please correct me if I'm
> wrong. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering.
> 
I think you are "wrong" [IMHO] for the reasons mentioned above. Also
please note that I'd be surprised if Robert responds on the newsgroup -
he has mentioned that he was going to stop monitoring comp.lang.ada.

  --Mark

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[tmoran]

> Let's say I get a copy of the source to GNAT 3.15a1 (under our service
> contract), ACT does not restrict redistribution.  I can choose to freely
> make it available (e.g., to my customer, others) or not.  That meets the
> license restrictions of the GPL.
  So if Raytheon decided to make a few extra bucks, they could sell
copies to everybody else, of course without support and with the usual
GPL restrictions.  Is there anything restricting you from doing that?

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Dale Stanbrough]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> > Let's say I get a copy of the source to GNAT 3.15a1 (under our service
> > contract), ACT does not restrict redistribution.  I can choose to freely
> > make it available (e.g., to my customer, others) or not.  That meets the
> > license restrictions of the GPL.
>   So if Raytheon decided to make a few extra bucks, they could sell
> copies to everybody else, of course without support and with the usual
> GPL restrictions.  Is there anything restricting you from doing that?


if it's in the GPL, no. However they may only make 1 sale. The rest
may be freely distributed by 3rd (or 4th, 5th) parties.

Dale

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Pascal Obry]

Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au> writes:

> if it's in the GPL, no. However they may only make 1 sale. The rest
> may be freely distributed by 3rd (or 4th, 5th) parties.

ACT main business is SUPPORT and you just can't "freely"
distribute that :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Stephen Leake]

Mark Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com> writes:

> Well, as a beta tester of GPS, there is nothing I have received from ACT
> to indicate that GPS would not be made freely available. We have a copy
> under our support contract and the beta agreement. We have not yet asked
> for source code - we are quite willing to wait until it is released -
> thank you.

I'm also a beta user of GPS. 

The fact that ACT distributes binaries, but not source, is I think a
violation of the GPL. I suspect I could force them to give me source
if I really wanted to.

However, I'm not going to complain, because GPS is _not_ ready to be
released; it has bugs, it is missing important features. Releasing it
now would do more harm than good.

I'd far rather ACT take time to get it right, than release it
prematurely to the unsuspecting public. I also want them to reserve
resources for fixing bugs in the compiler, which is what I really care
about!

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Hyman Rosen]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> The fact that ACT distributes binaries, but not source, is I think a
> violation of the GPL. I suspect I could force them to give me source
> if I really wanted to.

Unless ACT are the sole authors of the entire work,
in which case they can do whatever they want.

Re: Conflicting statements about GPS?

[Jeffrey Creem]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:u8z0qjge7.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...
> Mark Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com> writes:
> I'm also a beta user of GPS.
>
> The fact that ACT distributes binaries, but not source, is I think a
> violation of the GPL. I suspect I could force them to give me source
> if I really wanted to.

As someone else said even if they release it as GPL eventually, if ACT own
the
copyright they can distribute it under other terms as well (as long as it
does not include
other pure GPL components)....

But even if it did they would not have to give you the source with the
binary.
(see item b below from the GPL).

 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)