Re: Gnat Free ?

[dewarr@my-dejanews.com]

In article <87vhlgflfg.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>,
  Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> wrote:
> Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> writes:
> > dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > > We certainly have never "threatened to consider not doing
> > > business with any one who starts giving out wavefront". That is
> > > pure fantasy on the part of Ronald Cole.
> >
> > It's certinly ironic that the post you claim is "pure fantasy" is
> > archived at dejanews...  Took me all of 5 minutes to find, too.
>
> Go to "power search".  Select "English" for the Language,
> "comp.lang.ada" as the Forum, "dewar" for the Author, and "May 1 1997"
> for the Date.  Then "wavefront" for Power Search and click on "Find".
> The first article found says:
>
>   "If people started distributing wavefront versions freely, then w[e]
>   would probably reluctantly decide to stop making them available,
>   since it would be clear that their distribution was harmful. That
>   would be too bad for the cases where they really solve a problem. ...

Ronald, note the *if* here, a predicate discussing how we might change our
policies if this were to occur. We have made no such decisions, since the
situation has never arisen. Certainly it would not be a good thing for our
customers to have wavefronts floating around freely in our judgment. In fact
we are quite selective in giving out wavefronts, we encourage customers to
pick up wavefronts only if it is absolutely necessary to get around a
particular bug (since it is not a good idea to update to a new version of
the compiler too frequently). At the current time we do not even *ask* our
customers not to distribute wavefronts, let alone "threaten" them if they
do so.

The thing we want to avoid is a proliferation of wavefront versions that are
slightly different, and which cannot, of necessity, be as well tested as
releases. One of the troubles with public releases is that once something is
out there, it tends to stick around (we often get bug reports from people
using amazingly out of date versions of the public release).

Our preference therefore is for there to be only a limited set of official
releases publicly available. We are quite aware that some people would like
a much freer release policy, and we are also aware that a freer release policy
works well for other free software products like Linux. But GNAT is different
for a number of reasons, and we are convinced that our policy is in the best
interests of the Ada community.

>   "So if we did decide to curtail the distribution of wavefront
>   release because of problems with uncontrolled releases, then this
>   would be nothing like "refusing to do business with people" or
>   anything like that. it would just be a matter of balancing the needs
>   of customers in certain situations with other needs, something we
>   have to do all the time."


>   "There is, as Richard Kenner, points out a huge difference between
>   illegal and impolite or uncooperative. This distinction seems to be
>   lost on Ronald, but I think the rest of the community understands it."
>
> Two points, here:
>   - it is certainly *not clear* that wide distribution of unsupported,
>     development releases (clearly marked as such) would be harmful.
> And,
>   - being "impolite or uncooperative" (your words) to a client as a
>     result of their exercising their right under the GPL would,
>     presumably, be a breach of a support contract if there were no
>     other way to meet your guarantee of "immediate problem
>     resolution".

Richard Kenner made absolutely NO mention of being impolite or uncooperative
with a client, he was just discussing what the GPL does and does not permit.

As everyone should know, we consider ourselves bound by both the spirit and
the letter of the GPL, but as Richard Stallman has noted directly to Ronald
Cole, there is nothing about the GPL that discourages asking for people's
cooperation in not distributing premature copies inappropriately.

In fact of course, Ada Core Technologies goes far beyond the requirements
of the GPL in its policies. There is nothing at all in the GPL that requires
distribution of any GPL'ed software. However, ACT feels it is helpful to the
Ada community to make public versions of our technology available, and we are
willing to devote some of our resources to this goal. This policy continues
to be in effect, and we will continue to make periodic public releases of
GNAT and its tools. Note in particular that this includes ASIS and GLADE,
and the 3.11p release will be accompanied by corresponding latest releases of
both these technologies, as well as many other new useful tools.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own