Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:

> Exactly, they [AdaCore] have made an additional offering, under a different
> license,

No, it's the same license, there is just no exception to the terms
of the very same license. And this only applies to the GNAT GPL edition.
So there are two different editions of the compiler, and only one
of these editions is for GPL use only.

> leading to the first dual license for GNAT (GPL and GMGPL)
> that I know of.

There is one license for two editions of GNAT. One license comes with
an exception, the other is without exception. The first covers
Dewar's characterisation of the licensing situation completely, I think.

I don't know whether we should diagnose a change of mind.
It's rather a correction of expectations on our side that
seems necessary. Has there been an illusion of a company that
will go on to work hard and produce ever more software, well
shaped and for free, packaged free for closed-source or non-GPL use?

And I must repeat that WRT to compiler and runtime, the licensing
situation has not changed, except that there are now two editions
of the non-commercial compiler, not just one.

>  "it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software
>   for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate
>   license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary
>   context [...] at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no
>   such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for
>   runtime stuff".
> 
> AdaCore is now doing exactly what Robert said they chose not to:
> distribute GPL'ed software for price $0 [GNAT GPL] and charge people a
> bundle for a separate license that allows them to use the same
> software in a proprietary context [GNAT Pro] (I am paraphrasing him
> here as you can easily see).

They distribute GMGPL'ed software for price $0 [adding their sources
to the FSF GNAT tree]. So what you say can't be right, at least if stated
this way. People can use FSF GNAT at their own risk, just like
before.
I know of no *separate* license, just of an exception to the GPL.
When they "use the modified GPL for runtime stuff", and they still
do, they are doing exactly what Robert Dewar said. In fact, had there
been no new, additional public AdaCore package at all this year, would 
anyone speculate about a change in mind and strategy?


> Looks like a huge change in mind and strategy to me compared to what
> was said and written before.

I see no difference. In those days, GNAT wasn't readily available
as part of a GCC distribution. Now it is, and GNAT is readily available
for a number of popular OSs, under the same license as before.
Some versions of GCC are know to have a very good Ada part. Not
necessarily worse than what you get with the GNAT GPL edition.

(And is it really true that you can compare GNAT 3.15p and GNAT GPL
edition? I recall that most of the new stuff wasn't contained
in ACT editions of GNAT 3.15p.)

-- Georg