Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> On 2012-05-20, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>> GNAT is certainly very good. But it is a pain in the ass in many ways. It is
>> GPL only and even if you use gcc Ada eventually that is going to cause
>> problems as GPL moves from GPL2 to 3, and who knows what's next. LGPL
>> libraries today, tomorrow everythings GPL, you trusted them, you put all
>> your eggs in one basket, you got screwed.
>>
>
> I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use the
> FSF branch in order to avoid GPL issues and because when I need a RTOS, the
> RTOS I use (RTEMS) also uses it.
>
> The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF Ada
> runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised
> by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? 

None; he's spreading FUD.

> I am assuming I have missed something, but I don't know what.

The language has changed in detail, because GPL 3 provides a general
mechanism for specifying things like GMGPL. But the meaning is the same;
the GNAT runtime and generics are open source, but usuable in a
proprietary system.

AdaCore provides the same exception as FSF GNAT on their GNATPro
sources; that's their core business, so you can believe they got it
right!

-- 
-- Stephe