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

[Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net>]

In comp.lang.ada Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> 
> Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the
> Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software.
> 
> Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is in the Ada
> Community's interest to not share the GPL'd commercial and wavefront
> releases of GNAT.  Not being a member of that community, it is the
> part I don't understand.

The commercial one IS shared.  The commercial customer can always get
all the source code, and is allowed to give out copies.

Of course, if you didn't get it via a formal distribution from ACT
they don't guarantee that it's uncorrupted, and if you aren't paying
money to ACT they don't promise to support you.

The public version is the most recent stable commercial version,
"marked" as not formally distributed and therefore unsupported.

"Wavefronts" are very early versions of things which, once fully
debugged, will go into some commercial version and be released.

A customer who gets a "wavefront" is, IIRC, legally allowed to give it
out.  But the wavefront recipients know that it's a preliminary work
in progress, and not yet ready for wide distribution.  Most don't
distribute it.

If you have evidence that threats are used to keep someone from giving
out a wavefront, you may have evidence of action that goes against the
intent of the GPL.  But bear in mind that getting a wavefront is a
favor, not a right.  Most of us don't consider it a "threat" for ACT
to be less inclined to do a favor for someone who has annoyed them,
e.g. by giving out a prior wavefront.

If the "wavefront" mechanism were being used to withhold useful or
important changes from the community at large, that would not be nice,
but (again, IIRC) it still wouldn't violate the GPL.  The GPL is meant
to ensure that the source code will be available to the CUSTOMER who
gets a binary, not necessarily to the whole planet.

And, I don't know of any real allegations that something important was
being withheld for several releases.  I've just heard complaints based
in a desire to see and comment on work in progress, and the occasional
vague suspicion that wavefronts have "the good stuff."

Bear in mind that many compiler vendors will refuse to give out a
preliminary version, even to a "supported" customer.  You just get a
promise that "we'll fix that in a later release."  I find it amusing
that a company who goes further to make its code available is
therefore accused of withholding it.

Best,
Sam Mize

-- 
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam