MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

Hello all of you,

The Ada 2005 compiler, GNAT GPS licence states that this compiler
cannot be used for commercial applications (if I'm not wrong). The
MinGW compiler suite licence give access to create commercial
applications (if I'm still not wrong).

But what about the Ada 2005 compiler which comes with MinGW ? It has
something to deal with GNAT, isn't it ? So can I use it to comile
commercial applications ?

Note : this is a for a near futur attempt, I do not know if weither or
not this gonna works find, if weither or not I gonna earn anything.
I'm not sure (as people on the web does not like this kind of things,
this may be rejected). Further more, this will be for very low cost
applications (something which will be paid via SMS+ and the like), so
I cannot risk to lose anything buying a too much expensive licence,
althought if it goes fine, I will obviously agree to give some percent
of my earns to a compiler provider.

I will not use any of Qt or GTK for Ada, so I have no question about
these libriraries (will use my own), althought some one else may be
interested in this question.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Georg Bauhaus]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) schrieb:
> Hello all of you,
> 
> The Ada 2005 compiler, GNAT GPS licence states that this compiler
> cannot be used for commercial applications (if I'm not wrong).

(Is there an emoticon for IANAL?)

Just like with Microsoft's open and closed source software, the
license text states conditions for using the licensed
software, commercially or otherwise.
It is possible to use GPL software commercially, even with
version 3 of the GPL.  When you want to distribute binaries
derived from GPLed source, for commercial or other reasons,
without also making available what is required to be available
by the GPL, things are different.

> The
> MinGW compiler suite licence give access to create commercial
> applications (if I'm still not wrong).

The MinGW compilers' licensing may be with a special exception.
Roughly speaking, do not change a line of code and distribution
of your derived work will only depend on what it depends considering
the licenses of all works used in your program.  Thess might include
Microsoft's redistributables etc.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 18 juin, 13:07, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de>
wrote:
> Just like with Microsoft's open and closed source software, the
> license text states conditions for using the licensed
> software, commercially or otherwise.
> It is possible to use GPL software commercially, even with
> version 3 of the GPL.  When you want to distribute binaries
> derived from GPLed source, for commercial or other reasons,
> without also making available what is required to be available
> by the GPL, things are different.

Is an application compiled and builded with the compiler a derived
work ?

What does exactly mean “ derived work ” ?

> The MinGW compilers' licensing may be with a special exception.
> Roughly speaking, do not change a line of code and distribution
> of your derived work will only depend on what it depends considering
> the licenses of all works used in your program.  Thess might include
> Microsoft's redistributables etc.

I'm not sure I've understood line sentence “ do not change a line of
code and distribution of your derived work will only depend on what it
depends ”

May be I have to point that I wish to distribute applications compiled
and builded with either GNAT GPS or MinGW Ada compiler, not a version
of MinGW Ada nor a version of GNAT GPS.

> (Is there an emoticon for IANAL?)

As you see, me too, I am not a lawyer... I feel lost

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

Back ....

Two definitions :

http://wiki.wxwidgets.org/Development:_Definition_of_Derived_Work says

> According to United States Copyright law, a code snippet
> may be considered "derived from" if an author did his
> work similiar in nature to a piece of existing code
> after viewing that code, especially if the same author
> admits to doing so in a written form. Consider the case
> of a copyrighted manuscript that is translated into a
> different language. All the words are different, with
> no where near a one-to-one correspondence between
> definitions or word placements, and idioms may be
> completely different [...]

http://www.arrow-net.eu/faq/what-derived-work.html says

> A derivative work is a work based upon one or more
> preexisting works. A derivative work is for example
> a translation, adaptation, arrangement of music and
> other alteration, dramatisation, fictionalisation,
> motion picture version, sound recording, art
> reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other
> form in which a work may be recast, transformed,
> reworked or adapted.*

Now, what does “ based upon one or more preexisting works ” stands
for ? If I use a compiler to compile an application, the work is in
someway based on the compiler. So is it a derived work ?

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hyman Rosen]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote:
> Now, what does � based upon one or more preexisting works � stands
> for ? If I use a compiler to compile an application, the work is in
> someway based on the compiler. So is it a derived work?

A derivative (not derived) work under copyright law is created
by a significant auctorial transformation of an existing work.
For example, the recent novel "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"
is a derivative work of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice".

A collective work is a work arranged by an author which contains
copyrightable elements; to create and distribute such a work
requires permission from the rights holders of those elements.

The process by which either a derivative work or a collective
work is produced is not generally relevant to the permissions
required to copy and distribute that work. In the general case,
the copyright of the compiler does not affect the copyright of
the compiled program.

However, if the output produced by the compiler contains
significant copies of copyrighted works, then that output is a
collective work and permission to copy and distribute it must
be acquired from the rights holders of the copied elements. I
don't know enough about the Ada compiler in question to know
whether this is the case.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

Here is an explicite statement about GNAT GPS :

http://libre.adacore.com/libre/gnat-faq/ says

> How can I obtain the GNAT Technology?
>
> If you want to use the GNAT Technology for a commercial,
> industrial, or military project, visit www.adacore.com
> or contact sales@adacore.com. Our sales team will provide
> more information on the GNAT Pro subscription package and
> will answer questions concerning pricing, licenses, and
> available platforms.

So it seems it is explicitely not allowed to compile a commercial
application (what ever the cost of the application is to be ) with the
GNAT GPS compiler.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hyman Rosen]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote:
> So it seems it is explicitely not allowed to compile a commercial
> application (what ever the cost of the application is to be ) with the
> GNAT GPS compiler.

The GNAT compiler is released under the GPL, so AdaCore can't disallow
you from using the compiler however you want. The question is only about
the contents of the compiled executable. If it contains significant
quantities of GPLed code copied into it, then it may be copied and
distributed only under the GPL as a whole. You will have to hire a
lawyer and a computer expert to decide whether that is the case.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

About MinGW :

http://www.mingw.org/wiki/FAQ says

> Binaries created from the use of MSYS and of MinGW are
> not bound by any license found within this package unless
> you use a library that is itself covered by the GPL license.
> If you wish to create proprietary software then don't use
> libiberty.a or any other GPL licensed library. A library
> licensed with LGPL (Lesser GPL) may be used by proprietary
> software without GPL infection as special permission
> within the LGPL has given you this right.

I have a doubt about proprietary. This will not use any undocumented
file format and source code may be available, but not redistributable
(nor binaries of course). About availability of source codes, I may or
may not go this way, depending on the trustability of users. If I'm
not afraid users will think that source code available means “ free to
distribute ”, it will not be done, and if I think user can be trusted,
then source code will be available (I still wonder about it). If
source code of applications are to be provided (if I finally decided
to), then users will obviously be allowed to modify it for there own
use.

It is talking about LGPL. I've heard about it about generic packages
as well somewhere.

On 18 juin, 18:55, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
> Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne) wrote:
> The GNAT compiler is released under the GPL, so AdaCore can't disallow
> you from using the compiler however you want. The question is only about
> the contents of the compiled executable. If it contains significant
> quantities of GPLed code copied into it, then it may be copied and
> distributed only under the GPL as a whole. You will have to hire a
> lawyer and a computer expert to decide whether that is the case.

So if the application is compiled with any part of the Ada standard
package provided by GNAT, the application must be GPL ? ... all
packages sources for the Ada standard packages from GNAT have a
reference to the GPL.

By the way, I've discovered that in my GNAT GPS installation on
Windows, there is two library set : i686-pc-mingw32 and pentium-
mingw32msv


Now I gonna find more on this specific license for generic packages

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote:
> http://www.mingw.org/wiki/FAQ says
> 
>> Binaries created from the use of MSYS and of MinGW are
>> not bound by any license found within this package unless
>> you use a library that is itself covered by the GPL license.
>> If you wish to create proprietary software then don't use
>> libiberty.a or any other GPL licensed library. A library
>> licensed with LGPL (Lesser GPL) may be used by proprietary
>> software without GPL infection as special permission
>> within the LGPL has given you this right.

That answers your main question: you can create proprietary programs using the 
MinGW compiler. The rest of the paragraph is legal CYA so they can't be sued if 
you use a (non-MinGW) pure GPL library and try to claim that your program is not 
GPL.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Crucifixion's a doddle."
Monty Python's Life of Brian
82

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Pascal Obry]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) a �crit :
> So it seems it is explicitely not allowed to compile a commercial
> application (what ever the cost of the application is to be ) with the
> GNAT GPS compiler.

I'm not a lawyer either but it seems to me that your question is not
about making a commercial application but a closed source one.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|    http://www.obry.net  -  http://v2p.fr.eu.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

Hi Pascal,

On 18 juin, 22:53, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer either but it seems to me that your question is not
> about making a commercial application but a closed source one.
>
> Pascal.
>
Not really. As I've said before, the probleme with GPL is not about
source code access, but about the fact that if a single instance is
sold, then this will allow it ot be distributed with no charge. Thus
there are two options : to sell a single license at a hoght price, and
don't bother if the owner distribute it for free, but not body like
hight price, or distribute it at a low price, but lost every thing
beceause after the first item will be sold, it would not be possible
to sold any one after (beceause the one sold gonna probably be
distributed for free by the owner)

This is not a matter of source code (I do not bother to provide source
code for owner of a binary copy), but I'm afraid about the commercial
effect of the GPL licence on a low cost application.

By the way, I'm a bit afraid too that provinding source code will be
interpreted as a right to distribute for free (a matter of trust).

I think access to source code is nice, but I do not want short circuit
in distribution

I do not know how to explain it in other words... but I guess some one
will understand

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Stephen Leake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Hi Pascal,
>
> On 18 juin, 22:53, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:
>> I'm not a lawyer either but it seems to me that your question is not
>> about making a commercial application but a closed source one.
>>
>> Pascal.
>>
> Not really. As I've said before, the probleme with GPL is not about
> source code access, but about the fact that if a single instance is
> sold, then this will allow it ot be distributed with no charge. 

Which paragraph of the GPL says this? I don't believe this is correct.

The main point of the GPL is that if you distribute the binary (with
or without charge), you must also distribute the source (with a
reasonable charge).

> This is not a matter of source code (I do not bother to provide source
> code for owner of a binary copy), 

If you don't want to be required to distribute source, you cannot use
GPL code.

The MinGW Ada compiler runtime library is GPL, unless you get it from
AdaCore via a support contract, in which case it is GMGPL (GNAT
Modified GPL), which removes the source distribution requirement.

You need to talk to a lawyer.

> By the way, I'm a bit afraid too that provinding source code will be
> interpreted as a right to distribute for free (a matter of trust).

All rights are documented in the license. Whether people follow the
license is a separate question, but it can be very expensive to
enforce a restriction.

The GPL says the user must have access to the source, and can do
whatever they want with the software, including distributing new
binaries for free.

-- 
-- Stephe

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 193 bytes --]

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Georg Bauhaus]

Stephen Leake schrieb:

> The MinGW Ada compiler runtime library is GPL, unless you get it from
> AdaCore via a support contract, in which case it is GMGPL (GNAT
> Modified GPL), which removes the source distribution requirement.

In sources from MinGW.org (i.e. not AdaCore),

$ grep -l  'As a special exception' \
	lib/gcc/mingw32/4.3.0/adainclude/*adb |wc -l
     469

$ ls  lib/gcc/mingw32/4.3.0/adainclude/*adb |wc -l
     469

So these files annouce to be GPLed with a special exception
(GMGPLed).  No support comes with this compiler, of course.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Georg Bauhaus]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) schrieb:

> 
> What does exactly mean � derived work � ?

If you need to now this exactly (I guess, by exactly you mean
how to avoid being sued for violating licenses) you need to pay
a lawyer. Or become proficient in software licensing.

"Derived work", "Derivative Work" are technical terms,
as are originator's rights, copyright, etc etc., with
different meanings in different countries.
(Another issue is software patents in the USA; I understand
that Microsoft has patented a procedure to immediately check
the character typed into an input field in a GUI.  So beware of
calling Ada.Text_IO.Get_Immediate or similar if your software
is going to be used in the US ;-)


>> The MinGW compilers' licensing may be with a special exception.
>> Roughly speaking, do not change a line of code and distribution
>> of your derived work will only depend on what it depends considering
>> the licenses of all works used in your program.  Thess might include
>> Microsoft's redistributables etc.
> 
> I'm not sure I've understood line sentence � do not change a line of
> code and distribution of your derived work will only depend on what it
> depends �

If your application incorporates (or calls) Microsoft licensed
code, then Microsoft licenses apply.  With every Microsoft
programming tool set, you get a number of licenses, e.g. for
redistributables on which your product depends (and if you may
use these tools to build commercial software).  Read them.
  If your application instantiates items from
the GNAT library, and the GNAT library is the GPL edition
(not the MinGW edition) then, as announced where you got it,
(a) this may mean your work will have to be GPL work,
too and  (b) if your work uses other libraries in addition
to the GNAT libraries, then their licenses are not invalidated
by e.g. the MinGW exception or the pure GPL.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote:
> 
> Is an application compiled and builded with the compiler a derived
> work ?

In the case of an Ada program, there are 2 consideration:

1. The Ada run-time. This has 2 parts:

   a. The Ada run-time is linked with your program: If the run-time is pure GPL, 
then every program compiled by the compiler is GPL.

   b. The Ada run-time is a shared library: If you don't distribute the library, 
then your program may not be GPL even if the library is pure GPL. If you do 
distribute the library, then your program is affected if the library is pure GPL.

2. Instantiating vendor-supplied generics, including generics defined in the 
standard. If these are pure GPL, then any program that instantiates any of them 
is GPL.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Crucifixion's a doddle."
Monty Python's Life of Brian
82

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 18 juin, 20:25, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@nospam.acm.org> wrote:
> In the case of an Ada program, there are 2 consideration:
>
> 1. The Ada run-time. This has 2 parts:
>
>    a. The Ada run-time is linked with your program: If the run-time is pure GPL,
> then every program compiled by the compiler is GPL.
>
>    b. The Ada run-time is a shared library: If you don't distribute the library,
> then your program may not be GPL even if the library is pure GPL. If you do
> distribute the library, then your program is affected if the library is pure GPL.
>
> 2. Instantiating vendor-supplied generics, including generics defined in the
> standard. If these are pure GPL, then any program that instantiates any of them
> is GPL.

Thanks for this detailed description. You are talking like a lawyer :p

I hope some one else will find this thread useful

On 18 juin, 20:32, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@nospam.acm.org> wrote:
> That answers your main question: you can create proprietary programs using the
> MinGW compiler. The rest of the paragraph is legal CYA so they can't be sued if
> you use a (non-MinGW) pure GPL library and try to claim that your program is not
> GPL.

What CYA ? (I'm not native english, and there are many common english
acronyms I do not know)


Well, a very interesing stuff : I've pointed a big difference between
the GNAT GPS compiler and the MinGW Ada compiler (wich is althought
sourced from GNAT)

Juste look at the package body for “Ada.Asynchronous_Task_Control” as
an exemple (the file is name “a-astaco.adb”).

The one shipped with GNAT GPS has the following copyright notice :


>--                                                                          --
>--                         GNAT RUN-TIME COMPONENTS                         --
>--                                                                          --
>--        A D A . A S Y N C H R O N O U S _ T A S K _ C O N T R O L         --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                 B o d y                                  --
>--                                                                          --
>--          Copyright (C) 1992-2005, Free Software Foundation, Inc.         --
>--                                                                          --
>-- GNAT is free software;  you can  redistribute it  and/or modify it under --
>-- terms of the  GNU General Public License as published  by the Free Soft- --
>-- ware  Foundation;  either version 2,  or (at your option) any later ver- --
>-- sion.  GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
>-- OUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the  implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
>-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License --
>-- for  more details.  You should have  received  a copy of the GNU General --
>-- Public License  distributed with GNAT;  see file COPYING.  If not, write --
>-- to  the  Free Software Foundation,  51  Franklin  Street,  Fifth  Floor, --
>-- Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.                                              --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>-- GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. --
>-- Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core Technologies Inc.      --

Notice the big blank by the way...

Now, let see the copyright notice for the same file, for the Ada
compiler (provided by GNAT) which comes with MinGW :

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--                                                                          --
>--                         GNAT RUNTIME COMPONENTS                          --
>--                                                                          --
>--        A D A . A S Y N C H R O N O U S _ T A S K _ C O N T R O L         --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                 B o d y                                  --
>--                                                                          --
>--     Copyright (C) 1992,1993,1994,1995 Free Software Foundation, Inc.     --
>--                                                                          --
>-- GNAT is free software;  you can  redistribute it  and/or modify it under --
>-- terms of the  GNU General Public License as published  by the Free Soft- --
>-- ware  Foundation;  either version 2,  or (at your option) any later ver- --
>-- sion.  GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
>-- OUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the  implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
>-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License --
>-- for  more details.  You should have  received  a copy of the GNU General --
>-- Public License  distributed with GNAT;  see file COPYING.  If not, write --
>-- to  the Free Software Foundation,  59 Temple Place - Suite 330,  Boston, --
>-- MA 02111-1307, USA.                                                      --
>--                                                                          --
>-- As a special exception,  if other files  instantiate  generics from this --
>-- unit, or you link  this unit with other files  to produce an executable, --
>-- this  unit  does not  by itself cause  the resulting  executable  to  be --
>-- covered  by the  GNU  General  Public  License.  This exception does not --
>-- however invalidate  any other reasons why  the executable file  might be --
>-- covered by the  GNU Public License.                                      --
>--                                                                          --
>-- GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. --
>-- Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core Technologies Inc.      --
>--                                                                          --
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The blank is now filled and contains something which as important
conscequences

Finally, it the application statically links to this file and it is
compiled with GNAT GPS, it must be GPL, while if it is compiled with
MinGW, it can be GPL, of course, but it is not required to be.

The presence of this special statements should be checked for each
file required for the application.

A different copyright notice may be found, depending on the version of
MinGW. The actual release candidate has this one for the same file
(once again, the interesting thing is the middle part) :

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--                                                                          --
>--                         GNAT RUN-TIME COMPONENTS                         --
>--                                                                          --
>--        A D A . A S Y N C H R O N O U S _ T A S K _ C O N T R O L         --
>--                                                                          --
>--                                 B o d y                                  --
>--                                                                          --
>--          Copyright (C) 1992-2009, Free Software Foundation, Inc.         --
>--                                                                          --
>-- GNAT is free software;  you can  redistribute it  and/or modify it under --
>-- terms of the  GNU General Public License as published  by the Free Soft- --
>-- ware  Foundation;  either version 3,  or (at your option) any later ver- --
>-- sion.  GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
>-- OUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the  implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
>-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.                                     --
>--                                                                          --
>-- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted --
>-- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception,   --
>-- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.               --
>--                                                                          --
>-- You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License and    --
>-- a copy of the GCC Runtime Library Exception along with this program;     --
>-- see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively.  If not, see    --
>-- <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.                                          --
>--                                                                          --
>-- GNAT was originally developed  by the GNAT team at  New York University. --
>-- Extensive contributions were provided by Ada Core Technologies Inc.      --
>--                                                                          --
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I do not really know how to interpret this one “ As a special
exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional
permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version
3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. ”

So what does this “ GCC Runtime Library Exception, version 3.1 ”
says ?

Here is what it says :

( source is http://mirrors.xservers.ro/gentoo-portage/licenses/gcc-runtime-library-exception-3.1
)

1. Grant of Additional Permission.

> [...]
>
> You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by
> combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such
> propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that
> all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You
> may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice,
> consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
>
> [...]

I suppose “ consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
” talks about other modules (i.e. other ones which does not make
reference this notice).

Now, a question about “ Eligible Compilation Processes ” : is a
compilation processe Eligible if it links to a module which make
reference to this satement ?

If it is, both the first copyright notice found with the older version
of MinGW and the newer one will allow to compile commercial
application written in Ada.

But as I'm not sure about the meaning of “ Eligible Compilation
Processes ” ( and perhaps “ “ consistent with the licensing of the
Independent Modules. ” ” ), I will leave it as-is for the time,
waiting for comments on this interpretation (hope I'm not looking so
much clumsy).

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

Note about the previous message : it is a bit long, and Google groups
does not disply it in its whole. To see all of the content of the
latter message, click the “ more details ” link at the bottom of the
message.

Otherwise, you will ffel a big part is missing at the end.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Stephen Leake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3355 bytes --]

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> On 18 juin, 20:32, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
> <spam.jrcarter....@nospam.acm.org> wrote:
>> That answers your main question: you can create proprietary
>> programs using the MinGW compiler. The rest of the paragraph is
>> legal CYA so they can't be sued if you use a (non-MinGW) pure GPL
>> library and try to claim that your program is not GPL.
>
> What CYA ? (I'm not native english, and there are many common english
> acronyms I do not know)

It means "Cover Your Ass", which is an idiom for "make sure you cannot
be sued".

> Well, a very interesing stuff : I've pointed a big difference between
> the GNAT GPS compiler and the MinGW Ada compiler (wich is althought
> sourced from GNAT)
>
> Juste look at the package body for “Ada.Asynchronous_Task_Control” as
> an exemple (the file is name “a-astaco.adb”).

The differece you note is the difference between GPL and GMGPL. GMGPL
allows distributing applications linked with the compiler runtime
without also distributing the source.

Whether the runtime is actually GMGPL is not strictly controlled by
this paragraph in the source code; it is actually controlled by the
license covering the method by which you got the compiler.

You need to talk to a lawyer.

>>-- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted --
>>-- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception,   --
>>-- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>--

I haven't seen this before, but it is apparently the GNAT
modification, adapted to GPL 3.

> ( source is http://mirrors.xservers.ro/gentoo-portage/licenses/gcc-runtime-library-exception-3.1
> )
>
> 1. Grant of Additional Permission.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by
>> combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such
>> propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that
>> all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You
>> may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice,
>> consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
>>
>> [...]
>
> I suppose “ consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules.
> ” talks about other modules (i.e. other ones which does not make
> reference this notice).

Right.

> Now, a question about “ Eligible Compilation Processes ” : is a
> compilation processe Eligible if it links to a module which make
> reference to this satement ?

Yes, but you need to talk to a lawyer.

> If it is, both the first copyright notice found with the older version
> of MinGW and the newer one will allow to compile commercial
> application written in Ada.

Please don't use the word "commercial" in this sense; it just confuses
things. I know the GNAT Libre website uses it, but that is a sales
tool, not a license discussion. In license terms, "commercial" is
irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you are required to
distribute the source, and what license the distributed binary is
covered by.

That may ultimately determine whether you can make a profit according
to your particular business model, but the license itself is _not_
about making money.

-- 
-- Stephe

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 193 bytes --]

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[sjw]

On Jun 17, 8:37 pm, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> The Ada 2005 compiler, GNAT GPS licence states that this compiler
> cannot be used for commercial applications (if I'm not wrong). The
> MinGW compiler suite licence give access to create commercial
> applications (if I'm still not wrong).
>
> But what about the Ada 2005 compiler which comes with MinGW ? It has
> something to deal with GNAT, isn't it ? So can I use it to comile
> commercial applications ?

You can develop your product using whatever compiler you like and
distribute source; then the licensing terms are entirely up to you.

If you want to distribute binary without releasing source then things
are somewhat different.

If you use AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler as obtained from
libre.adacore.com to build your binary application then you must
distribute it under GPL terms or not at all. This is because the
process of compiling an Ada program that uses the Ada library involves
"copying" the source of the library -- at least, I think you'd be hard
put to it to explain to a court why instantiating a generic  didn't
involve copying.

If you're a paying AdaCore customer, they provide the compiler with a
license that allows you to develop proprietary software without
releasing source. In that case, or if you use the GCC Ada compiler
from the Free Software Foundation, you will find that the RTS source
includes this extension:

-- As a special exception,  if other files  instantiate  generics from
this --
-- unit, or you link  this unit with other files  to produce an
executable, --
-- this  unit  does not  by itself cause  the resulting  executable
to  be --
-- covered  by the  GNU  General  Public  License.  This exception
does not --
-- however invalidate  any other reasons why  the executable file
might be --
-- covered by the  GNU Public
License.                                      --

I suspect that the MinGW compiler is an FSF compiler; you can tell by
saying 'gnatls -v', it'll look either like

  GNATLS GPL 2009 (20090519)
  Copyright (C) 1997-2009, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

or

  GNATLS 4.3.3
  Copyright (C) 1997-2007, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

and the second style is the FSF one.

Interestingly, the GCC 4.3.3 compiler's <stddef.h> includes this:

/* As a special exception, if you include this header file into source
   files compiled by GCC, this header file does not by itself cause
   the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public
   License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other
   reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General
   Public License.  */

I couldn't find any overall policy statement at gcc.gnu.org, but it
seems that the FSF are addressing this question as part of the GPL3
changes: see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html .

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hyman Rosen]

sjw wrote:
>  This is because the
> process of compiling an Ada program that uses the Ada library involves
> "copying" the source of the library -- at least, I think you'd be hard
> put to it to explain to a court why instantiating a generic  didn't
> involve copying.

We know that there are Ada compilers which implement generics
through code sharing - not all generic instantiation involves
duplicating the generic code.

Furthermore, for there to be infringement there would need to
be significant and recognizable pieces of the generic code
found in the output, distinguishable from the general compiler
output.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 18 juin, 21:20, sjw <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
> [...]
> I couldn't find any overall policy statement at gcc.gnu.org, but it
> seems that the FSF are addressing this question as part of the GPL3
> changes: seehttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.htmlandhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html.

The second link gives the definition of “Independent Module” as was
looking for :

> When you write your software, it consists of a set of source
> code files. Each file is an “Independent Module,” as long as
> it doesn't contain any source from the GCC libraries.

So it is any part which is not part of the compiler suite

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 18 juin, 21:50, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> The second link gives the definition of “Independent Module” as was
> looking for :

It also contains the definition for “Eligible Compilation Process” :

(the second part is the most important, but the second is required to
understand the second one)

> When you compile those source code files, they usually go through a series of
> steps:source code generation, preprocessing, compilation to low-level code,
> assembling, and linking. Not all projects follow all these steps, depending on
> what language you're using and how it's written, but they'll always go in this
> order, and everyone using GCC will go through the process of compiling
> high-level code into some low-level language such as assembly code or Java
> bytecode. This phase is when GCC combines or links your own code with code
> from the GCC libraries. We call it the “Compilation Process.” The output you
> get from it is called “Target Code,” as long as that output is not used as
> compiler intermediate representation, or to create such an intermediate
> representation.
>
> In order to take advantage of this permission, the Compilation Process that
> you use to create Target Code has to be “Eligible,” which means that it does
> not involve both GCC and GPL-incompatible software. It's important to remember
> that the Compilation Process starts when you feed any high-level code to GCC,
> and ends as soon as it generates anything that can be considered Target Code.
> [...]

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[anon]

The license is for the GNAT compiler and tool suite.  You can freely download 
and modify any to all GNAT programs but you can not sell GNAT or its tools 
suite unless you obtain the rights from Adacore.  You can charge for the time 
downloading, and the time you spend modifying and compiling GNAT as well 
as the cost of the storage media (CD).  But that's it! 

Now, if you use GNAT, you can build a commercial program, but the GPL 2 and 
3 will force you to use a GPL or GPL-like license for your commerical project. 
That is, the source code must be available for those who use your program.  
You can sell the binaries for $xx.xx, and you may either give the source if 
they ask or in some cases you can charge addition $yy.yy for the source. 

GNAT Pro (around $15K a year) will allow a commercial program with any 
license you desire, GPL or non-GPL.

But for a more precise definition for Adacore try 

http://libre.adacore.com/libre/gnat-faq/

or email Adacore sales.


In <b437de36-b241-414e-9a4f-903eba06deb9@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?= <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>Hello all of you,
>
>The Ada 2005 compiler, GNAT GPS licence states that this compiler
>cannot be used for commercial applications (if I'm not wrong). The
>MinGW compiler suite licence give access to create commercial
>applications (if I'm still not wrong).
>
>But what about the Ada 2005 compiler which comes with MinGW ? It has
>something to deal with GNAT, isn't it ? So can I use it to comile
>commercial applications ?
>
>Note : this is a for a near futur attempt, I do not know if weither or
>not this gonna works find, if weither or not I gonna earn anything.
>I'm not sure (as people on the web does not like this kind of things,
>this may be rejected). Further more, this will be for very low cost
>applications (something which will be paid via SMS+ and the like), so
>I cannot risk to lose anything buying a too much expensive licence,
>althought if it goes fine, I will obviously agree to give some percent
>of my earns to a compiler provider.
>
>I will not use any of Qt or GTK for Ada, so I have no question about
>these libriraries (will use my own), althought some one else may be
>interested in this question.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hyman Rosen]

anon wrote:
> The license is for the GNAT compiler and tool suite.  You can freely download 
> and modify any to all GNAT programs but you can not sell GNAT or its tools 
> suite unless you obtain the rights from Adacore.

Says who? As far as I know, the entire toolchain distributed
by AdaCore is released under the GPL, and you may sell it to
your heart's content without requiring any permission from
anyone. When you do sell it, you must comply with the GPL,
of course.

> Now, if you use GNAT, you can build a commercial program, but the GPL 2 and 
> 3 will force you to use a GPL or GPL-like license for your commerical project.

Only if the output actually contains significant amounts of
copied GPLed code. For example, doesn't GNAT have a no-runtime
option?

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 18 juin, 22:01, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote:
> The license is for the GNAT compiler and tool suite.  You can freely download
> and modify any to all GNAT programs but you can not sell GNAT or its tools
> suite unless you obtain the rights from Adacore.  You can charge for the time
> downloading, and the time you spend modifying and compiling GNAT as well
> as the cost of the storage media (CD).  But that's it!

Interesting to note (althought I do not wish to sell GNAT, I would be
silly to do so... its not mine)


> Now, if you use GNAT, you can build a commercial program, but the GPL 2 and
> 3 will force you to use a GPL or GPL-like license for your commerical project.

But compiling Ada with MinGW or GCC is different, isnt' it ?

As I've quoted, the copyright notice from GNAT GPS and Ada in standard
packages from MinGW, are not the same (by the way, I do not really
know how much code produced by MinGW and GNAT GPS are different, but I
suppose it is at least a bit trustable).

> That is, the source code must be available for those who use your program.  
> You can sell the binaries for $xx.xx, and you may either give the source if
> they ask or in some cases you can charge addition $yy.yy for the source.

Well, my concern with the GPL license is not so much source code
accessibility, but rather the right for redistribution. This is not
compatible with low price distribution. Using an open source GPL
license (which is a kind of open source license, but not the sole one
possible), should require a hight price for a single sell. Otherwise,
it would not work with a low price sell, beceause as soon as the first
sell would be done, it could be distributed free of charge, and no
body will buy it (even if for a low price).

> GNAT Pro (around $15K a year) will allow a commercial program with any
> license you desire, GPL or non-GPL.

I know the princing, I've already been contacted by AdaCore, about
more than one year ago after an e-mail contact. At the time, I thought
there were perhaps low cost license without support, but I was tolded
it is not possible (from Ada Core France). The pricing was mostly the
same (12K€ a year at this time). Too much for somebody. But can be
understanded, as GNAT is very a good and trustable compiler. I guess
big coporation requiring hight trustability will think this is a good
price (and it is probably for that, sure).

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Ludovic Brenta]

anon wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> The license is for the GNAT compiler and tool suite.  You can freely download
> and modify any to all GNAT programs but you can not sell GNAT or its tools
> suite unless you obtain the rights from Adacore.  You can charge for the time
> downloading, and the time you spend modifying and compiling GNAT as well
> as the cost of the storage media (CD).  But that's it!

No, that's entirely wrong. GNAT is licensed under the GPL which
explicitly allows one to charge for copies of the software. I could
legally sell you a single copy of GNAT for One... Million... Dollars
if you were willing to pay.  The first catch is that *if* I sell (or
give away) a copy of GNAT, then I must also sell (or give away) the
sources along with it, at no *extra* cost.  If the copy I sell or give
is modified, then the sources that I must sell or give along are the
modified sources.  The second catch is that *you* are legally allowed
to re-sell (or give away) copies of the software to anyone, under the
same conditions.

> Now, if you use GNAT, you can build a commercial program, but the GPL 2 and
> 3 will force you to use a GPL or GPL-like license for your commerical project.
> That is, the source code must be available for those who use your program.

That is not true either. The source code must only be available to
those who receive a copy of the program; not to those who use the
program.  Think "software as a service": a customer can use a program
over the network without receiving a copy of it.  In this case, the
vendor does not distribute the program at all, so is not required to
disclose the sources.

The GNU Affero General Public License[1] is an alternative to the GPL
that does require vendors of such services to provide the sources.
Neither GNAT nor its run-time library use this license.

[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
  
> You can sell the binaries for $xx.xx, and you may either give the source if
> they ask or in some cases you can charge addition $yy.yy for the source.

The "addition" must be no more than the cost of physically copying the
sources, i.e. zero in the age of the Internet, or perhaps one euro for
a CD-ROM.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 18 juin, 22:32, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> [...]
> if you were willing to pay.  The first catch is that *if* I sell (or
> give away) a copy of GNAT, then I must also sell (or give away) the
> sources along with it, at no *extra* cost. [...]
>
> --
> Ludovic Brenta.

That's indeed what I know about the GPL

I think Ludovic is right (although Anon was nice to contribute)

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial

[anon]

Actually, GNAT uses GPL version 1, 2, and 3. And you can still download 
binary versions of GNAT for Linux that are licenced under GPL version 1.

Now, GNAT GPL 2009 uses both version 2 and 3 ( GNAT files: "copying", 
and "copying3" ). Using "Copying3" which may contain additions or changes 
to the GPL version 3 license that Adacore prefers for GNAT instead of the 
FSF general version. 

The GPL only forces the supplier of the object (compiled aka Non-Source 
Forms) code to make available the source code.  There is no statement or 
phase in the GPL version 3, or 2, or even 1 that states the source code 
must be "FREE" except for accessing the source on networks. 

Version 3:
  From the Preamble ( Third paragraph )

     When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom,
     not price. ...

Version 3:
  4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

     You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
     receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
     appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
     keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
     non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the 
     code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and 
     give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

     You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you 
     convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.


This allows one to set a price, for source code. But this does not stop 
one from charging another price for the object (compiled aka Non-Source 
Forms) code.
Plus, the third parties may want to pay for:
        1. source code only, or
        2. object code only, or
        3. both object and source code.


Plus,
Version 3:
  6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
    (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
    written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
    long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
    model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
    copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
    product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
    medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
    more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
    conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
    Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

Subparagraph (6.b) does not allow anyone without right from Adacore to sell 
any part of GNAT or its tool suite, except for maintaining, downloading and 
compiling the program. And that price must be no more than a "reasonable 
cost" for someone to perform those task! 


    d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
    place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
    Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
    further charge.  You need not require recipients to copy the
    Corresponding Source along with the object code.  If the place to
    copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
    may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
    that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
    clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
    Corresponding Source.  Regardless of what server hosts the
    Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
    available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

Subparagraph (6.d) allows the object and source codes to be split from each 
other.

Also, "Corresponding Source' may be omitted in the case of where the source 
would cause a "Patent Infringement" so giving a compiled object module may 
be required. Another case is where the software accesses libraries that have a 
national security concerns. Like using a "Cryptographic Module" or library that 
might be available to one country but not all.     


Plus, businesses understand that the cost of a software engineer to download, 
compile and maintain the source code is too expensive. They prefer the 
initial system to be compiled on a CD/DVD with printed documentations. 

Because, if one is setting up a "roll your own" system for a client, like  
using GPL system the cost may be too high. Like using Linux with GNAT may 
contain 1000s of GPL software packages and with the cost of that CD/DVD 
that is less than $5.00, but the cost of compiling and modifying each 
package may cost $1,000 or more depending upon the system and the number 
of packages to be installed. 

That's why most businesses prefer their software engineer to install Linux 
from companies like Debian, RedHat or SuSE for their open source systems. 
Also, they sometime prefer the non in-house software engineer to keep the 
software, that way the software engineer can update the software as the 
patches become available. And install these updates periodically.



In <01527aaf-991b-447b-a516-7dbe6b345650@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>anon wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>> The license is for the GNAT compiler and tool suite. =A0You can freely do=
>wnload
>> and modify any to all GNAT programs but you can not sell GNAT or its tool=
>s
>> suite unless you obtain the rights from Adacore. =A0You can charge for th=
>e time
>> downloading, and the time you spend modifying and compiling GNAT as well
>> as the cost of the storage media (CD). =A0But that's it!
>
>No, that's entirely wrong. GNAT is licensed under the GPL which
>explicitly allows one to charge for copies of the software. I could
>legally sell you a single copy of GNAT for One... Million... Dollars
>if you were willing to pay.  The first catch is that *if* I sell (or
>give away) a copy of GNAT, then I must also sell (or give away) the
>sources along with it, at no *extra* cost.  If the copy I sell or give
>is modified, then the sources that I must sell or give along are the
>modified sources.  The second catch is that *you* are legally allowed
>to re-sell (or give away) copies of the software to anyone, under the
>same conditions.
>
>> Now, if you use GNAT, you can build a commercial program, but the GPL 2 a=
>nd
>> 3 will force you to use a GPL or GPL-like license for your commerical pro=
>ject.
>> That is, the source code must be available for those who use your program=
>..
>
>That is not true either. The source code must only be available to
>those who receive a copy of the program; not to those who use the
>program.  Think "software as a service": a customer can use a program
>over the network without receiving a copy of it.  In this case, the
>vendor does not distribute the program at all, so is not required to
>disclose the sources.
>
>The GNU Affero General Public License[1] is an alternative to the GPL
>that does require vendors of such services to provide the sources.
>Neither GNAT nor its run-time library use this license.
>
>[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
> =A0
>> You can sell the binaries for $xx.xx, and you may either give the source =
>if
>> they ask or in some cases you can charge addition $yy.yy for the source.
>
>The "addition" must be no more than the cost of physically copying the
>sources, i.e. zero in the age of the Internet, or perhaps one euro for
>a CD-ROM.
>
>--
>Ludovic Brenta.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial

[Ludovic Brenta]

anon wrote on comp.lang.ada
[GPL Version 3]
> Subparagraph (6.b) does not allow anyone without right from Adacore to sell
> any part of GNAT or its tool suite, except for maintaining, downloading and
> compiling the program. And that price must be no more than a "reasonable
> cost" for someone to perform those task!

No, the "reasonable cost" applies to the sources only, and is on top
of the unlimited price one can charge for the binaries.  The price for
the binaries of GNAT may be 10**6 EUR and the price for a CD-ROM
containing the sources could be 1 EUR.  This would respect the GPL.

> Also, "Corresponding Source' may be omitted in the case of where the source
> would cause a "Patent Infringement" so giving a compiled object module may
> be required. Another case is where the software accesses libraries that have a
> national security concerns. Like using a "Cryptographic Module" or library that
> might be available to one country but not all.    

As I understand this, if you cannot convey the source code due to
patent infringement, then you cannot convey the object code either;
this means that you cannot convey the software at all.

> Plus, businesses understand that the cost of a software engineer to download,
> compile and maintain the source code is too expensive. They prefer the
> initial system to be compiled on a CD/DVD with printed documentations.

This is true. A consultant or company could therefore make a living
selling inexpensive prebuilt binaries to customers (i.e. spreading the
engineering costs between customers).  Since AdaCore only distribute
sources of some of their software (e.g. PolyORB or GtkAda), there is a
market oportunity for someone to sell prebuilt binaries to interested
customers (with sources, of course, in accordance with the license).

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Stephen Leake]

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> The Ada 2005 compiler, GNAT GPS licence states that this compiler
> cannot be used for commercial applications (if I'm not wrong). 

You are wrong.

You seem to be confusing "commercial" with "proprietary" or "closed
source".

AdaCore and RedHat are very successful commercial companies that use
the same license.

In addition, you'll have to be more specific. There are a few
different ways to get GNAT GPS, and they come with different licenses.

Finally, GPS is an IDE; the license of the IDE is not what matters for
distributing something you built with the IDE. What matters is the
license of the runtime that is linked with your application.

> But what about the Ada 2005 compiler which comes with MinGW ? It has
> something to deal with GNAT, isn't it ? So can I use it to comile
> commercial applications ?

Do you want your application to be open source, or closed source?

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

Hi Stephe,

On 19 juin, 00:17, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>
wrote:
>
> Do you want your application to be open source, or closed source?
>
> --
> -- Stephe

As I've replied to Pascal and to someone else before, if possible, I
would like it to be open source (this is obvious I think, I'm not to
write a virus or a trojan) to people who wish to get the source (in
the mean time, most of peoples don't wish, mainly just developpers
do), but I do not understand how I can sell something if peoples are
allowed to distribute it for free. This is the only reason why the GPL
is troublesome to me. If cannot do the project a commercial project
(at low cost, I'm not a nasty boy), I would simply not run this
project and think about something else.

Here is another wording of the matter by someone else (beside of my
own previous wording) : http://encodable.com/tech/blog/2006/02/25/Why_the_GPL_is_Incompatible_with_Commercial_Software

I come to this link searching on the web how it is possible to create
an open source commercial application under GPL. His thinking and mine
are somewhat the same.

Well, anyway I think that this should be Ok with GCC and the
exceptions introduced withing GPL3 referenced by GCC.

Note that I do not attempt to use any free libraries nor to abuse
anyone in this project (well, in fact, a series of little projects),
just my own (precisely in the purpose to not abuse anyone), except for
GTK, if I ever port something to Linux, beceause GTK is one of the two
native UIs on Linux/Unix-Like (GTK on Linux and GTK on Windows is not
the same stuff in my opinion). The trouble for me is about compiler
and runtime. But I guess other peoples reading this thread, might be
interested in the same question shifted to third party libraries. The
LGPL comes in this area.

About the library question, here is something which is of interest :
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=439136

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Stephen Leake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2125 bytes --]

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Hi Stephe,
>
> On 19 juin, 00:17, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Do you want your application to be open source, or closed source?
>>
>> --
>> -- Stephe
>
> As I've replied to Pascal and to someone else before, if possible, I
> would like it to be open source (this is obvious I think, I'm not to
> write a virus or a trojan) to people who wish to get the source (in
> the mean time, most of peoples don't wish, mainly just developpers
> do), 

Ok.

> but I do not understand how I can sell something if peoples are
> allowed to distribute it for free. 

You can't. You can make money selling support (that's what AdaCore and
RedHat do).

If you want to make money by selling copies of binaries, you cannot
use GPL code. You can use GMGPL code, or LGPL code.

> Well, anyway I think that this should be Ok with GCC and the
> exceptions introduced withing GPL3 referenced by GCC.

If you actually got the compiler from a source that says it is GMGPL,
not GPL, then yes.

> Note that I do not attempt to use any free libraries nor to abuse
> anyone in this project (well, in fact, a series of little projects),
> just my own (precisely in the purpose to not abuse anyone), except for
> GTK, 

The license for GTK is LGPL, which does not require distributing source.

The Libre page for GtkAda does not state what the license is; this is
unfortunate. The source obtained from there indicates it is GMGPL.

> if I ever port something to Linux, beceause GTK is one of the two
> native UIs on Linux/Unix-Like (GTK on Linux and GTK on Windows is
> not the same stuff in my opinion). 

Interesting. One reason I use GtkAda is so I don't have to change the
source to port from Windows to Linux.

> About the library question, here is something which is of interest :
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=439136

I protest; the LGPL is not "purposefully obfuscated". It is addressing
a complicated issue; you simply cannot expect simplistic answers.

-- 
-- Stephe

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 193 bytes --]

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[John B. Matthews]

In article <umy84n0iv.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
 Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:

[...]
> The Libre page for GtkAda does not state what the license is; this is 
> unfortunate. The source obtained from there indicates it is GMGPL.

I was puzzled by this, too:

<http://lists.adacore.com/pipermail/gtkada/2009-June/thread.html>

[...]

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Ludovic Brenta]

John B. Matthews wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> I was puzzled by this, too:
>
> <http://lists.adacore.com/pipermail/gtkada/2009-June/thread.html>

You're not the only one; I've tried to explain things in the README
file of most Debian packages. Here is the text I wrote for libgtkada2-
dev at the time of the license change in 2005:

Licensing changes
-----------------

In the previous version of Debian, libgtkada2 2.4.0 was licensed under
the terms of the GNAT-Modified GNU General Public License (GMGPL).
This new version is licensed under the terms of the pure GPL.  As a
consequence, it is no longer legal to distribute proprietary software
that incorporates this library.  If your program uses GtkAda, and if
you wish your program to use licensing terms incompatible with the
GPL, you have three choices:

- distribute your program in source form only, and require your
  licensees to build it for themselves.  Your sources need not be
  under GPL, since they are not linked to GtkAda.

- contact AdaCore, the upstream author, at sales@adacore.com, and
  purchase a GMGPL license for GtkAda.

- do not distribute your program at all.

You may be tempted to retrieve the sources from AdaCore's CVS
repository.  Be warned that doing so will still grant you a pure GPL
license, despite the fact that AdaCore have not yet adjusted the
licensing boilerplate in source files.  In Debian, I have removed the
"special exception" language only to remove confusion.  It is not I
who changed the actual license, it is AdaCore.  Contact them at
libre@adacore.com for any clarification.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 20 juin, 15:24, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> you wish your program to use licensing terms incompatible with the
> GPL, you have three choices:
>
> - distribute your program in source form only, and require your
>   licensees to build it for themselves.  Your sources need not be
>   under GPL, since they are not linked to GtkAda.
>
> - contact AdaCore, the upstream author, at sa...@adacore.com, and
>   purchase a GMGPL license for GtkAda.
>
> - do not distribute your program at all.
>

... or create your own Ada binding for GTK, step by step as needs
comes (otherwise it will be too much work), beceause the GTK license
is still LGPL unlike GtkAda (by the way, give another name to your own
Ada GTK binding as GtkAda is already in use)

http://www.gtk.org/ the first words on the home page says

> What is GTK+?
>
> GTK+ is a highly usable, feature rich toolkit for creating graphical user
> interfaces which boasts cross platform compatibility and an easy to use API.
> GTK+ it is written in C, but has bindings to many other popular programming
> languages such as C++, Python and C# among others. GTK+ is licensed under
> the GNU LGPL 2.1 allowing development of both free and proprietary software
> with GTK+ without any license fees or royalties.

(notice that Ada is not quoted)

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Ludovic Brenta]

Yannick Duchêne wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> On 20 juin, 15:24, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>
> > you wish your program to use licensing terms incompatible with the
> > GPL, you have three choices:
>
> > - distribute your program in source form only, and require your
> >   licensees to build it for themselves.  Your sources need not be
> >   under GPL, since they are not linked to GtkAda.
>
> > - contact AdaCore, the upstream author, at sa...@adacore.com, and
> >   purchase a GMGPL license for GtkAda.
>
> > - do not distribute your program at all.
>
> ... or create your own Ada binding for GTK, step by step as needs
> comes (otherwise it will be too much work), beceause the GTK license
> is still LGPL unlike GtkAda (by the way, give another name to your own
> Ada GTK binding as GtkAda is already in use)

That boils down to "do not use GtkAda at all". Note that the same
reasoning applies to any library licensed under pure GPL; that
includes thr Ada run-time library of GNAT GPL Edition.

> http://www.gtk.org/the first words on the home page says
>
> > What is GTK+?
>
> > GTK+ is a highly usable, feature rich toolkit for creating graphical user
> > interfaces which boasts cross platform compatibility and an easy to use API.
> > GTK+ it is written in C, but has bindings to many other popular programming
> > languages such as C++, Python and C# among others. GTK+ is licensed under
> > the GNU LGPL 2.1 allowing development of both free and proprietary software
> > with GTK+ without any license fees or royalties.
>
> (notice that Ada is not quoted)

It is mentioned on http://www.gtk.org/language-bindings.html. It would
be nice if someone would send a patch to the GTK+ web site maintainers
to mention Ada on the front page.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[John B. Matthews]

In article 
<0a010647-d078-483f-ba38-685355827a61@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
 Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:

> John B. Matthews wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> > I was puzzled by this, too:
> >
> > <http://lists.adacore.com/pipermail/gtkada/2009-June/thread.html>
> 
> You're not the only one; I've tried to explain things in the README 
> file of most Debian packages. Here is the text I wrote for 
> libgtkada2-dev at the time of the license change in 2005:

Thank you for clarifying this, Ludovic. I had been using GtkAda 2.4.2 
for several years and only recently had the opportunity to update. I 
see I overlooked a pivotal announcement in 2005:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/3e26dfa74
1e64e5f>

Is there some heuristic for determining when the GMGPL ceased to apply: 
a date or version number, perhaps?

[http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libg/libgtkada2/libgtkad
a2_2.8.1-5/libgtkada-glade-2.8.copyright]

-- 
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Ludovic Brenta]

John B. Matthews wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>  Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> John B. Matthews wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>>> I was puzzled by this, too:
>
>>> <http://lists.adacore.com/pipermail/gtkada/2009-June/thread.html>
>
>> You're not the only one; I've tried to explain things in the README
>> file of most Debian packages. Here is the text I wrote for
>> libgtkada2-dev at the time of the license change in 2005:
>
> Thank you for clarifying this, Ludovic. I had been using GtkAda 2.4.2
> for several years and only recently had the opportunity to update. I
> see I overlooked a pivotal announcement in 2005:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/3e26dfa74
> 1e64e5f>
>
> Is there some heuristic for determining when the GMGPL ceased to apply:
> a date or version number, perhaps?

The last version under GMGPL was 2.4.  At that time, AdaCore's source
repository was private.  They made a branch of their Subversion
repository public on 2007-06-07, long after the license change.

> [http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libg/libgtkada2/libgtkad
> a2_2.8.1-5/libgtkada-glade-2.8.copyright]

Right. If you look at the Package Tracking System[1], you'll see the
history of uploads to Debian.  The license change took place there
when I uploaded libgtkada2 2.8.1-1 to unstable on 2006-09-25.  Debian
4.0 "Etch" shipped with 2.8.1-5 and the license change as I announced
here on 2006-06-27[2] (the ensuing thread is interesting read, too).
IIRC, since the source repository was still private at the time, I
downloaded a tarball from libre.adacore.com.

[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/libg/libgtkada2.html
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/19c1a7e66b6f6b73

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Georg Bauhaus]

Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) schrieb:
> I do not understand how I can sell something if peoples are
> allowed to distribute it for free.

A Donations model seems to be enough for at least some
cookies.  Or plug computers.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[sjw]

On Jun 18, 11:41 pm, Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> As I've replied to Pascal and to someone else before, if possible, I
> would like it to be open source (this is obvious I think, I'm not to
> write a virus or a trojan) to people who wish to get the source

As I understand it, you are prepared to provide a source code
distribution under a license which does not permit redistribution.
That's not what most people would call 'open source' (I'm not saying
it's wrong, it's your code -- or it will be).

If you were writing in C and building your program for distribution
using GCC you would be just fine, because of the run-time library
exception noted above.

If you are writing in Ada and building your program for distribution
using GCC (from the FSF, and by the sound of it from MinGW as well)
you will be just fine, because of the run-time library exception.

If you are writing in Ada and building your program for distribution
using GNAT GPL from AdaCore, you are stuffed because they have
actively removed the run-time library exception.

So, write in Ada and build your program for distribution using GCC.
Job done.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)]

On 19 juin, 17:36, sjw <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:

> As I understand it, you are prepared to provide a source code
> distribution under a license which does not permit redistribution.
> That's not what most people would call 'open source'
Yes, but what is the most important thing with an application ? I
guess as an exemple, people using software to help genealogy research
do not bother the software is open source or not. He/she first see
what it can do, if it is nice to use, if it is not too much expensive
(yes I know a lot of people expect totally free, but a lot of useful
application are not free of charge), then if the guy/girl know a bit
about coding, he/she perhaps may be interested in setting up some
customisation (but have to not forgot that forking and then keeping
synchronized with update is not an easy thing) he/she want to have
access to source. But if he/she think the application is nice, he/she
can understand that funding help the autor to be ok and allow him/her
to go further in the project.

I have worked on a open source project about one year ago,
modifications has been publically released by owner of the project
(although some others were left private to avoid forking on the main
and sole official repository). I would have work the same way on it if
I would not have been allowed to redistribute modifications, just
beceause I was needing the modifications I've made to this
application.

Open source is nice (even mandatory when dealing with some kind of
users), but GPL is sometime good, sometime not

> So, write in Ada and build your program for distribution using [what-ever-suite-needs]
> Job done.

Fortunately, Ada is a hightly standardized (beside of beeing well
design) language, so it really help to beleave in this kind of view.

So yes, “write in Ada” as your sentence start with, is perhaps the
main statement here.

If a little off-topic is allowed : do am I dreaming ? Is there really
an Ada compiler personal licence for USD 150 at RRSoftware ? 8|
http://www.rrsoftware.com/html/companyinf/prices.htm (huuu.... or
perhaps there is something I did not understood) But I do not find
about Ada 2005 in the listing

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Randy Brukardt]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:e84d1b37-0a2d-4c89-b6b9-1ccdfac0f827@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
...
> If a little off-topic is allowed : do am I dreaming ? Is there really
> an Ada compiler personal licence for USD 150 at RRSoftware ? 8|
> http://www.rrsoftware.com/html/companyinf/prices.htm (huuu.... or
> perhaps there is something I did not understood) But I do not find
> about Ada 2005 in the listing

The personal edition is $195 alone or $295 with Claw. The $150 price is for 
annual support (that's on top of the software); you usually only need 
support if you need updates.

The current version does not do Ada 2007. (RRS uses the year the standard 
was approved as the name.) I've got a few things in the working compiler 
(which will be released fairly soon), but nothing remotely close to complete 
support.

Feel free to contact me if you need more information.

                         Randy Brukardt, R.R. Software, Inc.

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Dirk Craeynest]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 543 bytes --]

Yannick Duch�ne:
>> But I do not find about Ada 2005 in the listing
Randy Brukardt:
> The current version does not do Ada 2007.
> (RRS uses the year the standard was approved as the name.)

To all comp.lang.ada readers: please note that the internationally
accepted recommendation to refer to the latest Ada language definition
is to use the informal name "Ada 2005".

See <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/f1cf1036a71fca56>

Dirk Craeynest, Dirk.Craeynest@cs.kuleuven.be
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9, Head of Delegation, Belgium

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Marco]

On Jun 23, 4:19 am, d...@heli.cs.kuleuven.be (Dirk Craeynest) wrote:
> Yannick Duchêne:
>
> >> But I do not find about Ada 2005 in the listing
> Randy Brukardt:
> > The current version does not do Ada 2007.
> > (RRS uses the year the standard was approved as the name.)
>
> To all comp.lang.ada readers: please note that the internationally
> accepted recommendation to refer to the latest Ada language definition
> is to use the informal name "Ada 2005".
>

I agree since Ada 2007 is wrong - technically should be "Ada 95+"
since these are the published standards:
ISO/IEC 8652:1995
Information technology -- Programming languages -- Ada	90.93	JTC 1/SC
22
44ISO/IEC 8652:1995/Amd 1:2007  60.60	JTC 1/SC 22
45ISO/IEC 8652:1995/Cor 1:2001  60.60	JTC 1/SC 22

ISO seems to be a confusing mess !

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Marco]

IMHO commercial GNAT is really for larger companies that can afford
the fairly high cost.

If you are an individual intending to sell your software for Windows
users:

1) develop with some free GNAT compiler until you think that the
program has potential to make money - only use BSD style license
packages and libraries not GPL

2) purchase a less expensive Ada compiler for release of your product
(which you can deduct as a business cost) such as the "Janus/Ada 95
Personal Edition for Win NT/95" and leave GNAT behind.

    Any other inexpensive Ada for Windows compilers out there?

Call me a capitalist, but I believe people still should be able to
earn money developing software whether it is for a large company or as
an individual. Let the market sort out whether it has any value.
Sometimes it just doesn't have enough value to charge for it.

I also feel that GPL software certainly has an important place in the
world such as for learning a new language, back in the 1980's Ada
never really caught on because most compilers cost a lot of money.  [A
Turbo-Ada back then would have a gone a long way.
There were also stupid DoD no sub-setting rules that help prevent this
as well. The DoD should have formally defined an Ada-S without tasking
and other items that compiler makers were having trouble with at the
time.]

Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marco wrote:

> 2) purchase a less expensive Ada compiler for release of your product
> (which you can deduct as a business cost) such as the "Janus/Ada 95
> Personal Edition for Win NT/95" and leave GNAT behind.
> 
>     Any other inexpensive Ada for Windows compilers out there?

ObjectAda for Windows Core Pack used to be in the Microsoft
Pro range. I haven't checked lately, though, but think they
will be happy to sell a license if you don't expect 8/5 full
support and catering.