Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?)

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>]

In article <371DF7CE.C7D7C1F@spam.com>,
  spamwithchipsplease@spam.com wrote:

> And just what affect does releasing "Betas" to the public
> have on ACTs quality control ?

You are confused, we are not talking beta releases here
but current development versions, which are often quite
unstable, and definitely unsuitable for release to anyone!

> And just how long where glib2 public users kept waiting
> for the "public" release of a GPL work available to
> paying support customers ? glitch free ?

We released this at the appropriate time in our release
cycle. Actually the procedures required for modifying the
sources were published on chat@gnat.com long before the
release.

> You didn't decide to use the GPL, the code came with the
> GPL,

Wrong, we wrote the Ada compiler, and we most definitely
decided to use the GPL. It indeed was me personally who
encouraged Chris to make this requirement! Of course the
decision to use gcc for the backend meant that it was
natural in any case to GPL the code, but the government
contract did not require the use of gcc, that was a
decision that I and my colleages at NYU took. So, you
are quite wrong here, we *did* decide to use the GPL, and
the code for the GNAT front end did not "come" with the
GPL. Indeed the starting point for the code, Ada/Ed, was
most definitely NOT GPL'ed!

> How does it limit my use, except for trying to make it
> proprietary ?

It actually has quite a lot of restrictions, you should
read it carefully. For example, if you manufacture a chip
which you are keeping secret for now, e.g. the Merced, and
you then get a company to build you a gcc based compiler,
then under the terms of the GPL, you cannot distribute
this to your customers under non-disclosure agreements.

It's actually quite interesting. One company can develop
a version of GNAT or GCC under wraps without violating the
GPL, but there is no way at all for two or more companies
to cooperate in such an endeavor.

You also can't distribute modified versions except under
restrictive conditions (source must be made available at
reasonable cost).

As I say, a limited license for use, that's what the GPL
is, and in that respect it is like any other software
license, it is just that its limitations are less severe!

> Microsoft prohibit me asking a fellow for a copy of the
> latest version of power point, the GPL allows anyone the
> right to give me or anyone else the latest version. This
> "not till its glitch free" is crap,

Well fine, if you think it is crap, you are welcome to
write your own software and do what you think proper with
it.

> you restrict a GPL work and all that might be learnt from
> such betas and an open testing, bug reporting, knowledge
> base, to protect your only asset,

Nope, our procedures have nothing to do with asset
protection, and everything to do with quality control.

> which isn't the  compiler because you don't own it

Well actually ownership is shared. The original version
of GNAT was owned by NYU, but under the terms of the
government contract, NYU was required to assign the
ownership to the FSF, so the basic compiler is owned
by the FSF. Subsequent modifications to these parts of
the system by ACT are also assigned to the FSF.

Part of the runtime library is owned by Florida State
University. This is the tasking runtime that is used in
the current versions of GNAT.

Other parts of the system are owned by ACT. Currently all
parts of the system are under the GPL or the GMG (someone
used these initials for the GNAT-modified-GPL, so I will
adopt that usage). The FSF is committed by the assignment
instrument to keep its part permanently GPL'ed. FSU and
ACT could theoretically take the parts they have
copyrighted and make new versions with different licesnses,
but this is unlikely to happen since

a) neither FSU nor ACT have any intention of deviating from
the commitment to make everything released under the GPL or
GMG. Unlike some other "free software" companies, ACT
remains 100% committed to the free software notion.

b) in any case the old versions are released under the GPL.
Suppose that FSU suddenly decided that all future versions
of the FSU components would be released under a restrictive
license in an attempt to make money by selling them. Well
in this case, ACT would simply take the last GPL'ed version
and continue to develop it, ignoring the FSU work. I don't
see that happening, as stated in a), but if it did it would
not have any significant effect.

By the way, from the above, I vaguely get the feeling that
you think that releasing something under the GPL is somehow
incompatible with ownership. That's not at all true from a
legal point of view. Indeed the GPL is effective ONLY
because the copyright holder intends to enforce their
copyright rigorously.

For example, if we found someone distributing GNAT in
a manner incompatible with the GPL, then we would inform
the FSF, and both the FSF and ACT would take action. First
we would advise the party to cease and desist, and if we
did not get satisfaction, we would file a breach of
copyright suit, in the same way that Micrsoft would if
their copyright were violated.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

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