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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,959627a08fbc77c5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,30a9bb3017fa58dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Date: 1999/04/21 Message-ID: <7flg3q$si4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Deja-AN: 469244231 References: <3718ccb6.3581307@news.mindspring.com> <3718d384.254178@news.pacbell.net> <1999Apr20.073527.1@eisner> <7fi2k3$lv9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <371C99DD.F15ADC4B@spam.com> <7fkkoi$ui$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <371DF7CE.C7D7C1F@spam.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x9.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Apr 21 21:31:38 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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