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

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

M E Leypold wrote:
>

First let my clarify why I got the impression you are in fact
complaining about how the GPL defines "free" (or how issues got
once again nailed down):

 Georg> "State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source
 Georg> programs from free software libraries ..."
 Markus> "Yes, and why not?"

Because from the perspective of the GPL, wanting to derive closed
from GPLed is opposed to the intent of the GPL. The typical way out
is by a contract which involves payment, and an exception.
Unfortunately, also a substantial sum in this case.


> (you didn't answer on
> Steve Whalens comments), it probably won't convince you now.

I didn't answer his comment because  he has good points, and
all sides are arguable endlessly. Things are in constant flux,
obviously, even though from a _formal_ perspective nothing
much has changed (same license, just no more exception, as I
had said).

In fact, I find it sad that there is no more community/public
funding for more "intervendor" Ada stuff.
And it is a pity that AdaCore uses 'Img everywhere something
could be useful without their compiler. But they have said more
than once that they are not in the business of getting Ada 
software compile with other vendors' compilers. They've got
a point, though reading back in Ada history I find this a little
disappointing.


> But
> please stop to imply that other people try to rip off ACT :-).

Well, rip off, no, but sure we are all happily using good software
initially made by a well-funded university spin-off, AFAICT. Of
course they have now done a great deal themselves, who would doubt
this. So if the likes of us need GtkAda GMGPLed now, we'll need to
reinvent that wheel, as we can now profit from AdaCore's software
if and only if we can write GPLed software, or use it in some other
way permitted by the GPL.

In the light of the discussion you found, there were important
arguments that show how some software efforts more or less depend
on what AdaCore does, as a matter of fact. (Many interesting GNAT
projects found a home within AdaCore.) If this dependence weren't
there, there would have been less need to determine the licensing
state of GNAT related Ada software for Debian, for example, as
AdaCore is indeed the party to decide that e.g. AWS is now GPL.

In the light of other discussions you will find a real need for a
GMGPL GNAT low cost edition. Limited support has been suggested,
of the kind that is available from some vendors:

- AdaCore software, components in particular, is just what you need
- AdaCore software usually depends on GNAT
- AdaCore has explained why they choose to have these dependences

So basically, if you choose a more viable compiler (licensing, cost)
together with (now) AdaCore (formerly independent GMGPL) components,
you won't be able to compile anything without making changes to the
components, trivial as they may be. GMGPL or GPL does not matter,
then ...

There were comments stating that other parties could try to
provide this kind of support for GNAT software.
Reportedly, ACT had tried this kind of support contract, too,
and it didn't work well for them.
See also Michael Bode's posting of tonight.



> out of a rather different understanding of
> the implied obligations ACT had to the community.

IIUC, Steve Whalen emphasized that anyway the tax
payer community should have a word in the licensing to the effect that
it be more GMGPL, to be generally useful for those who did originally
pay for it. "Presumably for all users not only in the 'free for
free software sense'", as you have put it. This was about the compiler
and the run time system. I'm all in favor of some more
community based funding of generally useful Ada components.
But the GNAT contract seems to have been about just an Ada compilation
system.

Arguing about GPL AWS, GtkAda and so on is then a very different
understanding of any obligations, alleged or implied, because, formally,
the compiler/run time licensing needn't apply to general purpose software
components.
And yes, obviously this tends to be an occasion for, well, complaints. 

I for one will be happy to join the moaning, even though in my
case this has not so much to do with projects, or money.

-- Georg