GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Santiago Urueña]

I've just seen this at AdaCore's Libre site, and it seems it will be
released very, very soon!:

http://libre.adacore.com/gpl_notice.html

In my opinion this is great news for the entire Ada community, and not
only for Free-software developers.

Regards,

--
Santiago Urueña

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Santiago Urue�a wrote:

> I've just seen this at AdaCore's Libre site, and it seems it will be
> released very, very soon!:
> 
> http://libre.adacore.com/gpl_notice.html

Very good news!

Jacob
-- 
"You've got to build bypasses!"

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Britt Snodgrass]

This is good news. I hope the release will include a pre-built version
of GNAT for MAC OS X including ASIS and the GNAT pretty-printer.

Britt

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Jeffrey Carter]

Santiago Urue�a wrote:
> I've just seen this at AdaCore's Libre site, and it seems it will be
> released very, very soon!:
> 
> http://libre.adacore.com/gpl_notice.html
> 
> In my opinion this is great news for the entire Ada community, and not
> only for Free-software developers.

Interesting. In the past, AdaCore's public releases were suitable for 
producing non-GPL SW. I wonder if "This new Edition will provide Free 
Software developers, that is developers that distribute their work under 
the GPL" means the runtime and libraries will be GPL, rather than GMGPL, 
forcing the resulting executables to be GPL.

-- 
Jeffrey Carter
"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
E-mail: jeffrey_r_carter-nr [commercial-at]
         raytheon [period | full stop] com

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[David Trudgett]

Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> writes:

> Santiago Urue�a wrote:
>> I've just seen this at AdaCore's Libre site, and it seems it will be
>> released very, very soon!:
>> http://libre.adacore.com/gpl_notice.html
>> In my opinion this is great news for the entire Ada community, and
>> not
>> only for Free-software developers.
>
> Interesting. In the past, AdaCore's public releases were suitable for
> producing non-GPL SW. I wonder if "This new Edition will provide Free
> Software developers, that is developers that distribute their work
> under the GPL" means the runtime and libraries will be GPL, rather
> than GMGPL, forcing the resulting executables to be GPL.

Even if it is the case (and I have no idea) that the modified GPL is
not used, it still does not mean that resulting executables are
"GPL". It would only mean (at most -- see below) that those
executables couldn't be formally distributed except under the
GPL. This means that in-house proprietary software is completely
unaffected by the GPL.

    "The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it
    without ever distributing it to others."

    ...

    "It is essential for people to have the freedom to make
    modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing
    those modifications."

    -- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html


That said, I believe the spirit of the GPL (applied to compilers like
GNAT) is (or should be) to protect the software itself (compiler) from
being hijacked by proprietary interests. The GPL doesn't apply to the
output of programs, and an executable binary is just the output of the
compiler. Therefore, according to this logic, programs compiled by a
GPL'ed compiler are not themselves under the GPL (unless you make them
so).

In that regard, note:

    Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop
    non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to
    compile them?

        Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not
        cover the code you write. Using them does not place any
        restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.

        Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for
        technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser
        program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text
        in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in
        the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is
        derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status
        of the input.

        As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free
        programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the
        use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files
        without restriction. We made the decision because there were
        other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use
        for non-free programs.

So, the only possible grey areas with GNAT would be (a) if it copies
parts of itself into its output; or (b) statically or dynamically
links to GPL'ed libraries. In regard to libraries, we note in the case
of GCC:

    Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?

        Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile
        proprietary software using gcc.


So, can anyone comment on whether (a) or (b) actually applies to GNAT?
I have my doubts that (a) would apply, since it doesn't seem to apply
to GCC. As for (b), that would be a matter of library licensing, and
not of GNAT's licence itself.

David


-- 

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

All these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing and
defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had the air of
men who knew very well that they were doing their duty, and some were
even proud, were "glorying" in what they were doing.

    -- Leo Tolstoy

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Björn Persson]

David Trudgett wrote:
>     Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?
> 
>         Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile
>         proprietary software using gcc.
> 
> [...] that would be a matter of library licensing, and
> not of GNAT's licence itself.

Exactly. Until now, the license of Gnat's implementation of the standard 
Ada library has had an exception just like libstdc++. Now this 
announcement appears to say that the new edition will only be useful for 
building GPL software, and that makes Jeffrey Carter and me wonder if 
perhaps that exception has been removed.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Jeff Creem]

Bj�rn Persson wrote:
> David Trudgett wrote:
> 
>>     Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?
>>
>>         Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to compile
>>         proprietary software using gcc.
>>
>> [...] that would be a matter of library licensing, and
>> not of GNAT's licence itself.
> 
> 
> Exactly. Until now, the license of Gnat's implementation of the standard 
> Ada library has had an exception just like libstdc++. Now this 
> announcement appears to say that the new edition will only be useful for 
> building GPL software, and that makes Jeffrey Carter and me wonder if 
> perhaps that exception has been removed.
> 

Obviously we will need to wait and see....But if I had to bet I would 
expect that this is just meant to be vague enough like some of the other 
ACT things that large companies (that should probably be buying support 
anyway) are freaked out enough to buy the supported version.


More likely though is that it will add to the GPL is a virus and push 
companies to Greenhills...

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[jim hopper]

Britt,

the mac os x compiler from www.macada.org has a decent pretty printer
as part of the xcode IDE integration.  in addition on the tools is a
standalone version with a nice gui i wrote for it.

jim


In article <1126626211.199881.45600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Britt Snodgrass <britt.snodgrass@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is good news. I hope the release will include a pre-built version
> of GNAT for MAC OS X including ASIS and the GNAT pretty-printer.
> 
> Britt
>

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[David Trudgett]

Bj�rn Persson <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes:

> David Trudgett wrote:
>>     Does the libstdc++ exception permit dynamic linking?
>>         Yes. The intent of the exception is to allow people to
>> compile
>>         proprietary software using gcc.
>> [...] that would be a matter of library licensing, and
>> not of GNAT's licence itself.
>
> Exactly. Until now, the license of Gnat's implementation of the
> standard Ada library has had an exception just like libstdc++. Now
> this announcement appears to say that the new edition will only be
> useful for building GPL software, and that makes Jeffrey Carter and me
> wonder if perhaps that exception has been removed.

It occurs to me that removing this exception would be tantamount to
provoking a code fork.

As others have commented, the wording is probably nothing more than
perception management. 

We'll have to wait and see.

David


-- 

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity.

    -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Martin Dowie]

Jeff Creem wrote:
> More likely though is that it will add to the GPL is a virus and push
> companies to Greenhills...

That's not necessarily a bad thing - having heathy competition between Ada
vendors will keep their offerings to their customers from becoming stale and
unsupported. It keeps Greenhills in the Ada game and (presumably) provides
revenue to SofCheck to keep them in it too! Ditto for Aonix.

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Britt Snodgrass wrote:
> This is good news. I hope the release will include a pre-built version
> of GNAT for MAC OS X including ASIS and the GNAT pretty-printer.
> 
> Britt

I don't know about the Mac part, but it's my understanding that this 
release is closely related to the GAP ones, and these include ASIS and 
the pretty printer, so chances are good.

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Jeffrey Carter]

Bj�rn Persson wrote:
> 
> Exactly. Until now, the license of Gnat's implementation of the standard 
> Ada library has had an exception just like libstdc++. Now this 
> announcement appears to say that the new edition will only be useful for 
> building GPL software, and that makes Jeffrey Carter and me wonder if 
> perhaps that exception has been removed.

Also, Ada programs link in an Ada run time library. If the run time 
library is GPL, then the resulting program is GPL. All existing public 
GNAT releases from AdaCore have had an exception on the run time library.

One could always use another implementation of the standard library, but 
another version of the run time library is a bit more difficult.

Probably there is no problem, and AdaCore's public releases will still 
be able to produce non-GPL programs. Even if AdaCore decides to remove 
the exemption from the run time library for its public releases, we 
still have the GCC versions, which we can reasonably expect to adhere to 
the goals of the GCC project, which include being able to produce 
non-GPL programs.

-- 
Jeffrey Carter
"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
E-mail: jeffrey_r_carter-nr [commercial-at]
         raytheon [period | full stop] com

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Martin Dowie]

Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> Also, Ada programs link in an Ada run time library. If the run time 
> library is GPL, then the resulting program is GPL. All existing public 
> GNAT releases from AdaCore have had an exception on the run time library.
> 
> One could always use another implementation of the standard library, but 
> another version of the run time library is a bit more difficult.
> 
> Probably there is no problem, and AdaCore's public releases will still 
> be able to produce non-GPL programs. Even if AdaCore decides to remove 
> the exemption from the run time library for its public releases, we 
> still have the GCC versions, which we can reasonably expect to adhere to 
> the goals of the GCC project, which include being able to produce 
> non-GPL programs.

Well, it's there now - so let's all go and find out! :-)

-- Martin

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Martin Dowie wrote:
> Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> 
>> Also, Ada programs link in an Ada run time library. If the run time 
>> library is GPL, then the resulting program is GPL. All existing public 
>> GNAT releases from AdaCore have had an exception on the run time library.
>>
>> One could always use another implementation of the standard library, 
>> but another version of the run time library is a bit more difficult.
>>
>> Probably there is no problem, and AdaCore's public releases will still 
>> be able to produce non-GPL programs. Even if AdaCore decides to remove 
>> the exemption from the run time library for its public releases, we 
>> still have the GCC versions, which we can reasonably expect to adhere 
>> to the goals of the GCC project, which include being able to produce 
>> non-GPL programs.
> 

> Well, it's there now - so let's all go and find out! :-)

It seems they've changed tracks.

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Marc A. Criley]

Alex R. Mosteo wrote:

> It seems they've changed tracks.

Yep, if you go look at the file headers, you'll see a section has been 
carved out of each one where the GNAT Modified "As a special 
exception..." used to reside.

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Marc A. Criley escribi�:
> Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> 
>> It seems they've changed tracks.
> 
> 
> Yep, if you go look at the file headers, you'll see a section has been 
> carved out of each one where the GNAT Modified "As a special 
> exception..." used to reside.

Besides, it's plainly stated in the web page. There's even a comparison 
of versions and licenses.

https://libre2.adacore.com/dynamic/comp_chart.html

And yep, there's Florist and Asis (for Mac too).

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:00:39 +0000, Bj�rn Persson wrote:
...
> Exactly. Until now, the license of Gnat's implementation of the standard 
> Ada library has had an exception just like libstdc++. Now this 
> announcement appears to say that the new edition will only be useful for 
> building GPL software, and that makes Jeffrey Carter and me wonder if 
> perhaps that exception has been removed.

<rant>
Now I'm really confused!

If we want to supply Ada programs compiled with GNAT (without source), we
need to beg for a copy of GNAT Pro from someone? Or what?

GNAT Pro users can supply anyone they want with the GNAT Pro tools
licensed under GMGPL and GPL?

Can users of the new GNAT GPL edition merge in old GMGPL
library code before they can supply their binaries to others
under a license of their choice?

This amplifies the kind of Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt that Ada already
suffers from.

Are there any precedents of library licenses being downgraded like
this in other languages?  I can't image gcc users writing in C++
putting up with this kind of change!

Will there be *any* compilers available for Ada 2005 suitable
for developers of free, closed source code?  Surely lack of
suitable (free or inexpensive) compilers for Ada projects
was *exactly* the problem GNAT was developed to solve?
Even open source, GPL-incompatible licenses can't be used
with GNAT GPL, except for internal projects :(

Is ACT serious about enforcing these new restrictions?
Do they have the lawyers ready to harrass transgressors?
It seems like a most unfriendly thing to do...

I think it is a serious trap for people hoping to use
gcc for Ada projects to find they cannot use Ada unless they
switch to a suitable license.

I hope ACT will give a detailed explanation of their rationale
for the change in terms, and explain the *all* options available
to software developers who are caught up by this change.

Does this change really bring ACT more benefit than the
negativity towards them and towards Ada that will result?
</rant>
-- 
Adrian

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Marc A. Criley]

Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> Marc A. Criley escribi�:
> 
>> Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
>>
>>> It seems they've changed tracks.
>>
>> Yep, if you go look at the file headers, you'll see a section has been 
>> carved out of each one where the GNAT Modified "As a special 
>> exception..." used to reside.
> 
> Besides, it's plainly stated in the web page. There's even a comparison 
> of versions and licenses.
> 
> https://libre2.adacore.com/dynamic/comp_chart.html
> 
> And yep, there's Florist and Asis (for Mac too).

Some other info:

Version information (via gcc -v) says that it's "gcc version 3.4.4 
(cygming special)".

There are also some "3.4.5" directories present.

Someone earlier in this thread stated that the 4.x CVS repository does 
not have the strict GPL encumbrance, so that remains an option.  You 
just don't get everything nicely packaged up for you.  And last I heard, 
ASIS wasn't part of that repository.

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Simon Wright]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:

> Someone earlier in this thread stated that the 4.x CVS repository does
> not have the strict GPL encumbrance, so that remains an option.  You
> just don't get everything nicely packaged up for you.  And last I
> heard, ASIS wasn't part of that repository.

As of a moment ago, the head revision at savannah.gnu.org is still GMGPL.

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Nasser Abbasi]

 
Could someone please explain which GNAT should one use, the one in GCC 
or this version?

I am confused about versions now, and I do not want to read all the 
release notes and comments to find out, just a 1-line managerial type 
high level easy to follow explanation as to which one to use would be 
great :)

I have thought before than from now on GCC will have GNAT/Ada 
integrated in it.

Is GNAT 2005 edition different from the GNAT that is now or will be in 
GCC?

Nasser

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Nasser Abbasi wrote:

> Could someone please explain which GNAT should one use, the one in
> GCC or this version?

If you _only_ distribute your software under GNU GPL, the new version
published by AdaCore should be acceptable.

If you distribute _some_ software under a different license than GNU
GPL, you should keep the new version published by AdaCore far away
from your computer.

Jacob
-- 
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate
 agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the
 ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they
 want the ocean without the roar of its waters."
                                        -- Frederick Douglas

Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition

[Florian Weimer]

* David Trudgett:

> It occurs to me that removing this exception would be tantamount to
> provoking a code fork.

For a fork to happen, you need two parties.  I haven't heard of anyone
outside AdaCore actively working on fixing bugs and implementing new
features in GNAT in a systematic manner (at least its compiler part).

Backporting and forward-porting changes is a laudable activity, and I
admire those who spend their spare time on it.  But actually improving
the compiler in a systematic way requires a new level of development
activity.  And you also have to keep in mind that AdaCore will happily
take all the code you write and sell it to their customers, without
compensating you.  Not exactly motivating.