Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

M E Leypold wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:


>> State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source programs
>> from free software libraries and everyone knows what you are really
>> talking about, I think.
> 
> Yes, and why not?

The GPL Preamble states the intent that software derived from GPL
sources be GPLed. I think, yes, this could be called a lock.
So probably not a good choice for you and your customers, if for some
reason some third party would have the right to obtain your sources,
and you don't want that to happen.
What has AdaCore's business to do with that? If you are not an AdaCore
customer...

It could mean that the wealth of libraries that AdaCore has embraced
will no longer be available to the community of small budget, closed
source businesses. I'm not happy about this, but this is just business
(business tends to have its preferences frequently narrowed down
to what is necessary to get through the next few years. That's
unlike Ada...)


>  (b) Other communites (Ocaml, Qt) don't have a problem with that.

Neither does AdaCore have a problem with closed source applications,
nor does the FSF GNAT, and some libraries. OCaml is publicly funded.
Qt uses a dual licensing model, too, AFAICS.

Besides, the Ada community is not named AdaCore, they have their own
community. Which adds weight to your argument that Ada libraries
might become somewhat dependent on GNAT GPL. They had already been
dependent on GNAT's language extension 'Img.


>> Do the respective MS EULAs permit modifying the DLL source code and
>> distributing works based on these modified DLLs using any license of
>> your choosing?
> 
> No, but neither would the LGPL and the GMGPL. So why GPL instead of
> the other two? There must be an answer to that ... :-).

The answer is: GNAT GPL is intended for Free Software programmers.
The GAP is good for AdaCore and their customers because they can,
for example, find future employees in universities. (You call it
"bait" in another reply.)

>> As Ludovic has said, it is important to keep in mind that Free Software
>> uses some specific points of references when it says what free means
>> in the GPL.
> 
> Hello ... There is also LGPL. Why is that so? No point of reference?

As I said elsewhere, this was discussed and the FSF preference is still
this: avoid the LGPL, because it does not help spreading Free Software.
The main reference is freedom for others, as Ludovic has said. 
The decision to add an exception to FSF GCC libraries enumerates its points
of reference. You will find an explanation why LGPL is not preferred.
GNAT GPL Edition agrees with the preference of the FSF.


What other producers of non-GNU libraries do is their business.
For example, the EFL offers a different approach.

 
>> distribute closed source software that is derived from a Free Software
>> library. Fair enough, I'd say.
> 
> LGPL. LGPL. LGPL.

EFL, BSD, etc. So what? If it is AdaCore's choice to use GPL,
who could stop them? I think that your business's need for a GMGPL
library won't, because your business is not their business.


> I think you're missing some points.

I don't think I'm missing GPL points here.

> I dare say if one follows an argument
> based on a definition that freedom is absence of lock-ins and
> dependencies (...) and ask where and when dependencies arise, one
> would come to a different result.

The GPL is a deliberate choice that deliberately ignores arguments
that (have to) prefer independence of the GPL terms.



> If, of course you think, that "free" in any sense only pairs well with
> "free" -- like your above arguments seems to indicate -- I'd suggest
> that futureapps.de (Your Employer / company?) would stop using free
> Linux and free Apache to server their business web pages thus unfairly
> and unfreely commercially profiting (boo, boo) from the free software.

In fact, we did and do contribute to free software, incl. some money.
Both because it's fair, and because it helps our business. It also
tends to follow open standards. Obviously, we haven't contributed
in a big way. We also use GPL software where we can. 
We can't always, you describe the situation as known to you. But we
don't complain that makers of Free Software disallow use of their GPL
tools and components for closed source software. If you need that,
pay them, if you can.


> Compiling with GPL Gnat make your excutable a derive work of
> the GPL Gnat. Sounds like a legal trick to me, nothing else.

This is just how a license works, and is in accord with the
intent or spirit of the GPL: promote Free Software. The GCC docs
explain why they placed exceptions on the FSF GCC libraries, and
also why this is an exceptional exception.

Unfortunately, the great majority of business entities have been
educated to take advantage of anyone and anything.
This can certainly be in the way of seeing the Free Software model 
as economically viable in many cases, and from many perspectives.

-- Georg