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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:20ce:: with SMTP id g197-v6mr16328085iog.8.1525459179718; Fri, 04 May 2018 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4814:: with SMTP id c20-v6mr1957082otf.6.1525459179552; Fri, 04 May 2018 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader5.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!v8-v6no1678166itc.0!news-out.google.com!b185-v6ni2135itb.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no1678161itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <9c3a75d6-a01f-4cfa-9493-10b8b082ead8@googlegroups.com> <114db2c4-1e8c-4506-8d7c-df955dd9f808@googlegroups.com> <87d0yc1lsq.fsf@nightsong.com> <878t901jp4.fsf@nightsong.com> <38dddb6a-0e6f-4dcb-ade2-241528b61288@googlegroups.com> <25d61e8a-99e3-4eb1-81eb-e8485ae8de97@googlegroups.com> <45cb0937-7da0-4b14-aa6c-19d1db133dde@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <515e43cb-079f-4b89-8f1f-01c811acd649@googlegroups.com> Subject: 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? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 18:39:39 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 5538 X-Received-Body-CRC: 2406146121 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51983 Date: 2018-05-04T11:39:39-07:00 List-Id: 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 right= s overtly & meticulously granted under the wording of the GMGPL as ?cheatin= g?. >=20 > 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 =E2=80=9Chonor system=E2=80=9D = for only =E2=80=9Csupport contract=E2=80=9D. No, what would be being sold = is differentiated tangible access to the the following that might be =E2=80= =A2=E2=80=A2entirely omitted=E2=80=A2=E2=80=A2 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 IS= A; 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 PowerP= C 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 =E2=80=9Chonor system= =E2=80=9D to not submit =E2=80=9Csupport contract=E2=80=9D requests on thes= e 11 Enterprise-&-Assurance-only platforms? If (a), then what is being sold (and effectively restricted somehow) isn't = merely =E2=80=9Csupport contract=E2=80=9D, but rather the GMGPLed derivativ= e-work bits themselves. (How precisely is that the software freedom that R= MS envisions for GMGPLed software?) If (b), then precisely which portion o= f the GMGPL says that the paying customer needs to refrain from executing t= hose 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 chos= e off the menu at the time of the price quotation. This compartmentalizati= on works over the long term only if paying customers don't exercise their s= oftware-freedom rights in the GMGPL to re-distribute the source code that t= hey have received under the GMGPL's software-freedom terms (or the executab= les for that matter). Is an implied pressure to not disobey the honor syst= em tantamount to a beyond-GMGPL license agreement atop the GMGPL? Must all= license agreements that are in effect in reality actually appear in writin= g? What happens if a paying customer were to disobey the =E2=80=9Chonor sy= stem=E2=80=9D? DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer and have not passed the bar in any jurisdiction. I am sp= eaking for only myself in novelty-entertainment value for my own personal e= njoyment as a purely-hypothetical/theoretical logic exercise regarding my u= nderstanding of plain-meaning reading of English prose. Do not rely on any= of this without consulting a lawyer.