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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6deb3e1ddefb099 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.195.165 with SMTP id if5mr1493612pbc.1.1337734901864; Tue, 22 May 2012 18:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Path: pr3ni30730pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Britt Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <5e2f0584-afcc-4ca6-88a2-1badcec87f46@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.36.0.226 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1337734825 1163 127.0.0.1 (23 May 2012 01:00:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 01:00:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.36.0.226; posting-account=rdRzuwoAAAAyW3CSBhs_xgfCUJSc1aNt User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/536.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1084.46 Safari/536.5,gzip(gfe) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-05-22T18:00:25-07:00 List-Id: On May 22, 12:43=A0pm, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Simon Clubley wrote: > > I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use t= he > > 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 somethin= g, > > but I don't know what. > > It could be FUD but I have read FSF is eventually planning to do away wit= h > 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 matte= r > 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. > > > 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-GN= AT * See this very old thread where I was wrong and got re-calibrated: https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/f6ad09be517= b338c/e716c9bfdc1b0612?#e716c9bfdc1b0612