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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.42.38.76 with SMTP id b12mr4618434ice.26.1422618487355; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:48:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.93.18 with SMTP id c18mr74112qge.4.1422618487326; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:48:07 -0800 (PST) Path: border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!hl2no3702627igb.0!news-out.google.com!q4ni22qan.0!nntp.google.com!bm13no3971809qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:48:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.82.24.153; posting-account=3cDqWgoAAAAZXc8D3pDqwa77IryJ2nnY NNTP-Posting-Host: 188.82.24.153 References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad> <199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com> <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <724c149f-0396-42a4-8594-bdbf21cce0d9@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware From: Marius Amado-Alves Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:48:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:192115 Date: 2015-01-30T03:48:07-08:00 List-Id: > The GNAT Pro/GNAT GPL dichotomy seems unique: two products with essentially > identical features, differing only in the run-time license. Not unique at all, this is called "double licensing" and last time I check it was a wide spread model. I don't understand the above discussion of AdaCore's free GNAT vs. FSF's GCC: is the license not exactly the same (GPL)?