Re: Precisely why can't official FSF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtime en masse from GNAT GPL Community Edition?

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 12:22:50 PM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2018-05-04, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 11:20:30 AM UTC-5, Mark Lorenzen wrote:
> >> You buy a support contract for a maximum number of developers based on the "honour system"
> >> i.e. you don't cheat.
> >
> > I am pretty sure that RMS would not consider the software-freedom rights overtly & meticulously granted under the wording of the GMGPL as ?cheating?.
> 
> Note that he said "support contract", not software. That's what is being
> sold here if I understand correctly.

Referring to the table:
https://www.adacore.com/gnatpro/comparison

As I understand it, what is being sold as GNAT Pro Enterprise and GNAT Pro Assurance levels is not merely some sort of “honor system” for only “support contract”.  No, what would be being sold is differentiated tangible access to the the following that might be ••entirely omitted•• from GNAT Pro Developer:
1) ability to exclude post-Ada95 language features;
2) ability to exclude post-Ada83 language features;
3) executable for AIX, whose backend targets POWER ISA;
4) executable for Solaris, whose backend targets SPARC & IA32 ISA;
5) executable for some OS, whose backend targets Android natively on ARM ISA;
6) executable for some OS, whose backend targets bare metal on PowerPC and LEON ISAs;
7) executable for some OS, whose backend targets Linux on PowerPC;
8) executable for MacOS(?), whose backend targets iOS on ARM ISA;
9) executable for some OS, whose backend targets Lynx178 on IA32 and PowerPC ISAs;
10) executable for same OS, whose backend targets PikeOS on IA32, ARM, and PowerPC ISAs;
11) executable for some OS, whose backend targets VxWorks on IA32, PowerPC, and ARM.

(a) Are these 11 entirely omitted from GNAT Pro Developer?
(b) Or are GNAT Pro Developer paying customers on the “honor system” to not submit “support contract” requests on these 11 Enterprise-&-Assurance-only platforms?

If (a), then what is being sold (and effectively restricted somehow) isn't merely “support contract”, but rather the GMGPLed derivative-work bits themselves.  (How precisely is that the software freedom that RMS envisions for GMGPLed software?)  If (b), then precisely which portion of the GMGPL says that the paying customer needs to refrain from executing those 11?

Methinks that even Assurance and Enterprise paying customers don't receive all 11 en masse either, but rather only the variants that they overtly chose off the menu at the time of the price quotation.  This compartmentalization works over the long term only if paying customers don't exercise their software-freedom rights in the GMGPL to re-distribute the source code that they have received under the GMGPL's software-freedom terms (or the executables for that matter).  Is an implied pressure to not disobey the honor system tantamount to a beyond-GMGPL license agreement atop the GMGPL?  Must all license agreements that are in effect in reality actually appear in writing?  What happens if a paying customer were to disobey the “honor system”?

DISCLAIMER:
I am not a lawyer and have not passed the bar in any jurisdiction.  I am speaking for only myself in novelty-entertainment value for my own personal enjoyment as a purely-hypothetical/theoretical logic exercise regarding my understanding of plain-meaning reading of English prose.  Do not rely on any of this without consulting a lawyer.