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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2c7b0b777188b7c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:29:43 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050817)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades
References: <a790c$4342e299$499532c$1080@ALLTEL.NET>
 <1128499462.850353.146890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <oNU0f.3248$4h2.686@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <87ek6zom2h.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <rVd1f.7719$oc.565@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m2fyree0wz.fsf@grendel.local>
 <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <mrw+A5Ls5qp1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
In-Reply-To: <mrw+A5Ls5qp1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <434669d7$0$26210$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Oct 2005 14:28:08 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f4a9663c.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=@@oKgolY<b1E][lTbkER26Q5U85hF6f;4jW\KbG]kaM8GSi?jHD8GO0[bL]I;HI07:hP3YJKgE\j<T:9S`^oMVM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5492
Date: 2005-10-07T14:28:08+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Clubley wrote:

> Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source
> and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people
> _within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just
> created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada.

Not speaking on AdaCore's behalf, I think the only persons who have
created confusion in the Ada community are those who manage to make
people think that there is now only one GNAT, and that it can be used
in GPL projects only. And that this must somehow introduce the decline
of Ada.

The comments sound like free riders' moaning in almost all cases.
(Exceptional cases have been presented in GNAT GPL threads, and it seems
that the new paragraph on compatible free licenses at the libre site
is a reaction to corresponding inquiries from the Ada community (I guess).)

It might be a disservice to Ada to continue lament and speculation, in the
presence of a comparatively rich set of compiler alternatives, including
free ones of highest quality.


> PS: Yes, I know that the code in the FSF GCC codebase is currently GMGPL.
> How many potential new users do you think will get far enough along to
> discover that,

All users of GNU/Linux distributions for example might see the system Ada
compiler first, i.e. the FSF GNAT. And only later, if at all,
will they discover the GNAT GPL Edition.

If someone wishes to use some package like AWS within a closed
source application, they can go and ask the authors for a license.

Maybe RR Software will present a very nice and affordable Ada 2005
solution on MSWindows.
Rumor has it that the compiler has very good error messages, and helpful
exception tracing.


> and of those who do, how many will wonder if this codebase
> will now change to pure GPL as well ?

I might as well ask how many will wonder if AdaCore is a healthy
company that will continue to contribute their code to GCC.
Now _this_ is spreading FUD. ;-)


-- Georg