Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers

[Britt <britt.snodgrass@gmail.com>]

On May 22, 12:43 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> > I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use the
> > FSF branch in order to avoid GPL issues and because when I need a RTOS, the
> > RTOS I use (RTEMS) also uses it.
>
> Yes, that's what I mean.
>
> > The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF Ada
> > runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised
> > by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? I am assuming I have missed something,
> > but I don't know what.
>
> It could be FUD but I have read FSF is eventually planning to do away with
> the LGPL for libraries and has started moving to GPL3 for everything. I
> personally wouldn't put anything past Stallman. I think it's only a matter
> of time. He knows what he can get away with and what he can't. He's just
> biding his time. It gives the FSF guys indigestion knowing there is any
> library LGPLd.
>
 <snip>
>
> Thanks to you and the other Simon for the info. I'd like to get at least gcc
> Ada with lgpl libraries to run on Solaris.

It seems you are confused, as I once was*, about GNAT and the "Lesser
GPL" (LGPL). The LGPL has never been applied to GNAT. GNAT Pro and FSF
GNAT have always been licensed as either GPLv2 with the GMGPL special
exception or, currently, GPLv3 with the GCC Runtime Library Exception
v3.1. The relatively recent GNAT GPL editions are GPLv3 without the
exception. So no LGPL in the mix anywhere.

Here is a good reference on the topic:
http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html#The-variants-of-GNAT

* See this very old thread where I was wrong and got re-calibrated:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/f6ad09be517b338c/e716c9bfdc1b0612?#e716c9bfdc1b0612