Licences

Licences

[Lucretia]

After having waited absolutely ages for a GNAT from AdaCore, I was
supremely pissed off that they GPL'd it, as the extra tools are only
available through them. Now, I'm working on some code that wanted to
(attempt to ;-D) make money on.

So, I can continue to use FSF GNAT (I think). Is GCC 4.x going to get
the GPL treatment as well?

Also, using the gurrent GCC, if I distribute a binary, do I have to
link it to a shared libada (or whatever it's called)?

Thanks,
Luke.

Re: Licences

[Marc A. Criley]

Lucretia wrote:
> After having waited absolutely ages for a GNAT from AdaCore, I was
> supremely pissed off that they GPL'd it, as the extra tools are only
> available through them. Now, I'm working on some code that wanted to
> (attempt to ;-D) make money on.

The GPL doesn't stop you from selling your product.  And for as much 
money as you want to ask and can get.

The GPL doesn't forbid you from requesting that your customer not 
redistribute your product (though all you can do is make the request, 
you can't legally stop them from doing so, all you can do is let them 
know you will refuse to support them or provide updates if they do).

If your customer doesn't actually link your product into their code, 
i.e. you're building an application rather than a library or such, that 
customer is not required to GPL their code.

If your product does need to be linked in, then it depends on whether 
the customer must use GPL GNAT to utilize it, or can they build and link 
using a differently licensed compiler/runtime?  If it's "vanilla" Ada, 
even GNAT Ada, then you can develop your code with GPL GNAT and release 
it under any license you want.  (The key thing is whether someone could 
utilize your product with a GNAT compiler other than GPL GNAT, if so, 
you're in the clear.)

The GPL does allow your customer to redistribute your product, though as 
mentioned above you can request they not do so.  (Ref: GNAT GAP and GNAT 
Pro.)

The GPL does require that you provide access to your product's source 
code.  (But if you were going to use the GMGPL you were going to do that 
anyway, right?)

For help on understanding what the GPL makes you do, and also allows you 
NOT to do, see the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.

IANAL

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out

Re: Licences

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Lucretia" <lucretia9@lycos.co.uk> writes:
> After having waited absolutely ages for a GNAT from AdaCore, I was
> supremely pissed off that they GPL'd it, as the extra tools are only
> available through them. Now, I'm working on some code that wanted to
> (attempt to ;-D) make money on.
>
> So, I can continue to use FSF GNAT (I think). Is GCC 4.x going to get
> the GPL treatment as well?

I am aware of no plans to change the license in the FSF tree.  In any
case, AdaCore cannot make such a change by themselves; only the FSF
can do that.  AdaCore made a license change only on their own internal
sources, by applying a clause of the GPL.

> Also, using the gurrent GCC, if I distribute a binary, do I have to
> link it to a shared libada (or whatever it's called)?

You don't have to use libgnat, you can use pragma No_Run_Time, but
then most of the benefits of using Ada vanish.  Whether you link
statically or dynamically makes no difference from a licensing point
of view; it is a purely technical decision.  In any case, if you use
the GMGPL libgnat, you must provide the sources of libgnat, or point
your customers to gcc.gnu.org where they can obtain the sources for
themselves.  You do not have to provide the sources for your program.

If you use a libgnat under GPL, then you must provide the sources for
you program, too.  But you can still sell your program (and services
surrounding your program: hint, hint) for money.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Licences

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> In any case, if you use
> the GMGPL libgnat, you must provide the sources of libgnat, or point
> your customers to gcc.gnu.org where they can obtain the sources for
> themselves.

This is incorrect. If your binary does not fall under the GPL, you do not have 
to supply sources to anything. Using GMGPL SW does not cause your binary to fall 
under the GPL.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."
Monty Python's the Meaning of Life
56

Re: Licences

[Martin Krischik]

Lucretia wrote:

> After having waited absolutely ages for a GNAT from AdaCore, I was
> supremely pissed off that they GPL'd it, as the extra tools are only
> available through them. Now, I'm working on some code that wanted to
> (attempt to ;-D) make money on.

But you can sell GPL programs. There is nothing wrong with that. Almost all
Linux distributors do it.

GPL means that you can't just take the work of others to incorporate into a
closed source project - you have to give back to the comunity as well.

And actually: All the discussion has made me think and I consider to change
the licence of the SouceForge projects I am administrating. Why should
anyone take my work and make money with it in a *closed* *source* project 
- That's freeloading.

Making money with open source is of corse OK.

I really consider a dual licence now making the GMGPL version only available
to those who made a suitable donation to the projects. Even if it's only
ￜ5,-- - at least it shows good will.

In only thing I would wish for from AdaCore is a zero seat offer - just a
gnat tracker account with download (GMGPL) option but without priority
support.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Licences

[Steve Whalen]

Marc A. Criley wrote:
> Lucretia wrote:
> > After having waited absolutely ages for a GNAT from AdaCore, I was
> > supremely pissed off that they GPL'd it, as the extra tools are only
> > available through them. Now, I'm working on some code that wanted to
> > (attempt to ;-D) make money on.
>
> The GPL doesn't stop you from selling your product.  And for as much
> money as you want to ask and can get.
>

I suspect that to most of the several million computer programmers on
the planet, listing all of the special cases in which the GPL does NOT
interfere with what most programmers would call "making money" on a
program, is misleading.

Most programmers are NOT open source programmers, do NOT ship source
code with the programs they sell, and would find the requirements of
the GPL unacceptable for what is generally called "proprietary"
software. The universe of professional programmers who write
proprietary (closed source) programs to whom the GPL is NOT an
impediment is very small in relation to the universe of computer
programmers who write proprietary software.

Since we are no longer permitted to include AdaCore's runtime library
from their "free" Ada compiler when selling a binary only distribution,
I suspect the original author was correct in guessing that AdaCore's
GPL compiler is NOT appropriate for the intended use. The only legal
way to do a binary only distribution with an AdaCore Ada 2005 compiler
is to buy support from AdaCore.

Why do people keep pretending that AdaCore's removal of the GMGPL
license exception from their runtime isn't a really big change for the
Ada community?  It really does make a difference to a lot of individual
programmers (and thus to Ada).  Programmers who cannot afford to pay
AdaCore (or who choose not to) now must rely on significantly out of
date versions of compilers and tools in order to "make money" on a
program they wrote.

Getting people to use Ada as much as possible is one of the reasons the
DOD required the versions of GNAT they paid for to be free for ALL uses
including proprietary. AdaCore apparently doesn't feel there's enough
original "paid for by the DOD" content left over from the original DOD
contract in their Ada 2005 compiler to adhere to the spirit of the
original DOD contract requirement that there should be a free Ada
compiler available which allows proprietary code development for the
good of the Ada community.

The AdaCore removal of the GMGPL exception IS bad for Ada and I wish
people would quit pretending it isn't. No longer having a reliable +
free + up to date + easy to install Ada compiler makes "Ada
proselytizing" much harder (I don't consider having to compile your own
compiler and libraries from CVS as being "easy to install").

By way of introducing sharp programmers to Ada, I used to set up a GNAT
compiler on Windows or OS/2 or whatever machine a programmer used as
their primary development environment. I would do this so he or she
could learn Ada without any effort on their part to find and install
all the necessary pieces to write useful code that they could run on
their main machine.

I know of at least one programmer who wrote and sold a program after I
got him interested in Ada via the GNAT compilers. That cannot happen
anymore because a binary only program cannot be "sold" from the AdaCore
GPL compiler (the program that was sold that I'm referring to here did
NOT generate enough money to pay for an AdaCore support contract,
though it did pay for a few presents for the wife to make up for late
nights spent on the computer <g>). It is now much harder to get these
kinds of Ada converts without a free Ada compiler.

Steve

(the other one (not "The Duck") <g>)

Re: Licences

[Martin Dowie]

Steve Whalen wrote:
> No longer having a reliable +
> free + up to date + easy to install Ada compiler makes "Ada
> proselytizing" much harder (I don't consider having to compile your own
> compiler and libraries from CVS as being "easy to install").

I would have thought that this was an ideal opportunity for an Aonix or 
an RRS to step in with a personal $0-zero support version of their compiler.

Aonix do have one but the restrictions it imposes are so large that you 
can't develop anything of any note on it.

RRS do ship a low-cost compiler but when you can get a free 
C/Delphi/C++/Java compiler, it is hard to justify even that small amount 
- and a lot of student simply can't even afford <$100 - especially when 
there is a new iPodWhatever every 6 months! ;-)

Surely, a $0 compiler, that could be used outside of the GPL, would open 
the Ada world up to many more people and that in turn would create 
demand for paid-for products and/or support?

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Licences

[Szymon Guz]

Martin Krischik napisał(a):
> Lucretia wrote:
> 
> 
>>After having waited absolutely ages for a GNAT from AdaCore, I was
>>supremely pissed off that they GPL'd it, as the extra tools are only
>>available through them. Now, I'm working on some code that wanted to
>>(attempt to ;-D) make money on.
> 
> 
> But you can sell GPL programs. There is nothing wrong with that. Almost all
> Linux distributors do it.
> 
> GPL means that you can't just take the work of others to incorporate into a
> closed source project - you have to give back to the comunity as well.
> 

well, for me the GPL means sth different: I can write program and sell 
it on the GPL licence and the the buyer can sell it too without my 
permission and I have nothing from that. When I write superextraprogram 
I want and I need to have froma that some money so I dont' want to sell 
it on the GPL licence.

Re: Licences

[Brian May]

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Whalen <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:

    Steve> I know of at least one programmer who wrote and sold a
    Steve> program after I got him interested in Ada via the GNAT
    Steve> compilers. That cannot happen anymore because a binary only
    Steve> program cannot be "sold" from the AdaCore GPL compiler (the
    Steve> program that was sold that I'm referring to here did NOT
    Steve> generate enough money to pay for an AdaCore support
    Steve> contract, though it did pay for a few presents for the wife
    Steve> to make up for late nights spent on the computer <g>). It
    Steve> is now much harder to get these kinds of Ada converts
    Steve> without a free Ada compiler.

It would appear Adacore has forgotten the "proprietary programs
written by individuals or small companies that cannot afford and do
not want to pay for an expensive support contract" market. As well as
open source programs that do not use a GPL compatible license (for any
number of reasons - personally like others I like using current
versions of GPL in my own code).

I could understand this if Ada was more popular.

In a way, the goal of the license is similar to the free version
BitKeeper - free for open source but paid (at high rates geared at big
projects IRC) for closed source software. At one time I believe the
code was "open source" (but restrictive license). Then it changed to
free binary + restrictive license. I think the situation has now
changed, I don't think they support a free version anymore - lets hope
Adacore doesn't revoke the free version in the same manner (I got the
impression at LCA2005 that this was a bitter dispute with various
parties throwing insults and accusations at each other - I think on
the linux-kernel mailing lists).

Fortunately, I believe in this case, FSF holds the copyright, so
presumably Adacore can't restrict access any more then making it GPL.

However, I think the people Adacore "forgot" will use the gcc gnat
compiler now instead. This in turn hopefully will lead to my
development with this compiler.

I suspect the end result is that people will end up continuing to use
the compiler they are most familiar with - even when the project
justifies paying the $$$ for the Adacore supported compiler.
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

Re: Licences

[Brian May]

>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:

    Martin> Surely, a $0 compiler, that could be used outside of the
    Martin> GPL, would open the Ada world up to many more people and
    Martin> that in turn would create demand for paid-for products
    Martin> and/or support?

For the idea of a $0 zero support compiler to work, I think I would
need source code for the compiler.

That way if I identify a compiler bug I can (in theory at least) fix
it myself without bothering the vendor, who is likely to try and blame
my (possibly closed) code for causing the problem.
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

Re: Licences

[Lucretia]

<quote>
If your customer doesn't actually link your product into their code,
i.e. you're building an application rather than a library or such, that

customer is not required to GPL their code.
</quote>

Well, I'm currently working on wxAda which is most probably going to be
under BSD or MIT or some other open licence, i.e. allow anyone to use
it without having to give me money. That will be my contribution to
wxWidgets and the Ada community.

I then want to use this library to build a particular programmer's tool
and to experiment with my Ada "game engine" which may be multitiered,
libraries and a final application.

Thanks,
Luke.

Re: Licences

[Lucretia]

<quote>
You don't have to use libgnat, you can use pragma No_Run_Time
</quote>

But, then you have to provide your own run time to get the most of out
of Ada, which is why I'm using Ada in the first place.

Luke.

Re: Licences

[Lucretia]

<quote>
Why do people keep pretending that AdaCore's removal of the GMGPL
license exception from their runtime isn't a really big change for the
Ada community?  It really does make a difference to a lot of individual

programmers (and thus to Ada).  Programmers who cannot afford to pay
AdaCore (or who choose not to) now must rely on significantly out of
date versions of compilers and tools in order to "make money" on a
program they wrote.
</quote>

Exactly! I believe this will produce a code fork in the FSF tree and
people like me will continue to use that version of GNAT, unless
another free compiler becomes available.

Thanks,
Luke.

Re: Licences

[Jeff Creem]

Lucretia wrote:
> <quote>
> Why do people keep pretending that AdaCore's removal of the GMGPL
> license exception from their runtime isn't a really big change for the
> Ada community?  It really does make a difference to a lot of individual
> 
> programmers (and thus to Ada).  Programmers who cannot afford to pay
> AdaCore (or who choose not to) now must rely on significantly out of
> date versions of compilers and tools in order to "make money" on a
> program they wrote.
> </quote>

No. Not exactly. Programmers who cannot affort to pay AdaCore (or who 
choose not to) must either rely on siginificantly out of date versions 
of the compilers. Or they must rely on versions from the FSF tree. Or 
they must rely on non-free but still relatively cheap offerings from 
RRSoftware (or perhaps Aonix)

> 
> Exactly! I believe this will produce a code fork in the FSF tree and
> people like me will continue to use that version of GNAT, unless
> another free compiler becomes available.
> 
> Thanks,
> Luke.
> 

I am not sure why a fork is needed. AdaCore appears to still be 
contributing to the FSF tree and there has been no discussion at all in 
the FSF GCC groups about a license change. AdaCore goes through quite a 
bit of work to package and test and "put their name" on a particular 
GNAT version and they have decided (right or wrong..for them and us) 
that it is best for their business if they cause some limiting of the 
use of their freely disctributed versions.

The FSF tree does exist. It does continue to be maintained and it is 
(probably) in the best interest of AdaCore to keep working within that 
tree to some extent.

I find it interesting when people talk of wanting a $0 dollar Aonix 
build when a big reason given for why the FSF tree is not acceptable is 
the lack of the distributed systems annex and ASIS. Are those things 
availaible from Aonix? (I honestly do not know).

I am not trying to say that I am happy with the situation. I just don't 
think that the FSF tree approach is really all that bad. There are of 
course quality issues with the FSF tree at times but more and more 
non-ada GCC developers appear to at least be enabling Ada during their 
bootstraps.

The quality will probably never get where we'd like it as long as the 
state of Ada in the tree is not a consideration for the release 
criteria. I am not sure if this will ever change but if a few people 
stepped up to the plate and became GCC developers supporting the Ada 
tree it would not hurt.

Re: Licences

[Martin Dowie]

Jeff Creem wrote:
> I find it interesting when people talk of wanting a $0 dollar Aonix 
> build when a big reason given for why the FSF tree is not acceptable is 
> the lack of the distributed systems annex and ASIS. Are those things 
> availaible from Aonix? (I honestly do not know).

Distributed Annex - no, they say most people use middleware (CORBA) instead.

ASIS - yes, but not in the free or even the 'Pro' version. You need to 
fork out serious cash for ASIS as it's part of an enterprise bundle. I 
think they would need 3rd party (SofCheck?) agreement to ship it in any 
other manner. Real shame.

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Licences

[Jeff Creem]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> Lucretia wrote:
> 
> 
>>After having waited absolutely ages for a GNAT from AdaCore, I was
>>supremely pissed off that they GPL'd it, as the extra tools are only
>>available through them. Now, I'm working on some code that wanted to
>>(attempt to ;-D) make money on.
> 
> 
> But you can sell GPL programs. There is nothing wrong with that. Almost all
> Linux distributors do it.
> 
> GPL means that you can't just take the work of others to incorporate into a
> closed source project - you have to give back to the comunity as well.
> 
> And actually: All the discussion has made me think and I consider to change
> the licence of the SouceForge projects I am administrating. Why should
> anyone take my work and make money with it in a *closed* *source* project 
> - That's freeloading.

As copyright holder this is of course your choice. It really depends on 
why you write and maintain these things in the first place. If your 
primary goal (or one of your primary goals) is Ada advocacy then 
changing the license is a bad idea. There will be those that cannot make 
use of something that is GPL. These tend to be the same people that 
would have a hard time getting their company to "buy" some software from 
some non-corporate entity via some sort of paypal thing.

Also as other have pointed out, using the GPL does not really imply 
"giving back to the community". It implies "giving freedom to your 
customers".

I could still feel free to release my program under the GPL and base it 
on a large # of GPL components and the original community that wrote the 
components I use may never see a single line show back up to them unless 
one of my customers decides to give it back.

If the program/support is sold for a small ammount of money then it 
would not be at all unexpected that the code might make its way back to 
the originbal project. But, if I can manage to sell it for a large sum 
of money then the only people buying it would be big companies. In this 
case (even without some real or percieved threat of lack of future 
support) it is unlikely that the code would ever make its way back. The 
big companies that pay for the software are not liekly to contribute it 
back (after all in their mind they just paid a lot of money for that 
software). The people that work there will probably not want to take it 
and contribute it back for fear of angering their employers.


Note I have (at times) been an AdaCore customer and don't recall any 
implicit or explicit "requests" to not make their source available 
(though others here seem to indicate this happens).. And yet after many 
many years I have not seen anyone "leak" GNAT code.

Re: Licences

[Pascal Obry]

Jeff,

> I find it interesting when people talk of wanting a $0 dollar Aonix
> build when a big reason given for why the FSF tree is not acceptable is
> the lack of the distributed systems annex and ASIS. Are those things
> availaible from Aonix? (I honestly do not know).

AFAIK, AdaCore is the only Ada shop with a distributed annex
implementation (really sad BTW). Aonix does have an ASIS implementation.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Licences

[Simon Wright]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> And actually: All the discussion has made me think and I consider to
> change the licence of the SouceForge projects I am
> administrating. Why should anyone take my work and make money with
> it in a *closed* *source* project - That's freeloading.

Most of the OSS software I have written has been done for the fun of
it. I would have some trouble getting rewarded in cash (need to get
employer's agreement), the fact that other _programmers_ find the
stuff useful is enough. It's a gift culture.

> I really consider a dual licence now making the GMGPL version only
> available to those who made a suitable donation to the
> projects. Even if it's only €5,-- - at least it shows good will.

That would mean that several of the users of (for example) the Booch
Components wouldn't have been able to use them. Well, I suppose one
could claim the PayPal payment on expenses; just depends on the good
will of the manager who has to sign it and the view taken by the
accounting trolls!

Re: Licences

[Martin Krischik]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
 
>> And actually: All the discussion has made me think and I consider to
>> change the licence of the SouceForge projects I am
>> administrating. Why should anyone take my work and make money with
>> it in a *closed* *source* project - That's freeloading.
 
> Most of the OSS software I have written has been done for the fun of
> it. I would have some trouble getting rewarded in cash (need to get
> employer's agreement), the fact that other _programmers_ find the
> stuff useful is enough. It's a gift culture.

True. And most of the time you make gifts for the fun of it as well - but:
How long will you make a birthday and Christmas gift to someone who never
gives you a gift back?

Bun then there is the Ada-Advocacy part as well to be considered - which is
probably the strongest argument for the GMGPL.

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Licences

[Michael Bode]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> I really consider a dual licence now making the GMGPL version only available
> to those who made a suitable donation to the projects. Even if it's only
> ￜ5,-- - at least it shows good will.

Why not charge 14000ￜ per year?

> In only thing I would wish for from AdaCore is a zero seat offer - just a
> gnat tracker account with download (GMGPL) option but without priority

I don't think that's going to happen. I've got a quote from them for
GNAT Windows, Linux and GtkAda. Minimum cost is 28000ￜ per year. When
I asked for version more in the range of Microsoft's offerings they
told me their support is better. When I answered I believe that but I
would be completely happy with the kind of support that GNAT GPL
receives, I've got no answer.

If you're not Boeing or Lockheed that's your problem.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Licences

[Martin Krischik]

Michael Bode wrote:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> 
>> I really consider a dual licence now making the GMGPL version only
>> available to those who made a suitable donation to the projects. Even if
>> it's only ￜ5,-- - at least it shows good will.
> 
> Why not charge 14000ￜ per year?

Because I am not greedy - I just despise freeloading.

>> In only thing I would wish for from AdaCore is a zero seat offer - just a
>> gnat tracker account with download (GMGPL) option but without priority
> 
> I don't think that's going to happen. I've got a quote from them for
> GNAT Windows, Linux and GtkAda. Minimum cost is 28000ￜ per year. When
> I asked for version more in the range of Microsoft's offerings they
> told me their support is better. When I answered I believe that but I
> would be completely happy with the kind of support that GNAT GPL
> receives, I've got no answer.

I think that is the real problem here. When I talked with AdaCore they said
that cheaper offers made no sense and there was the free version for that.
Problem now is that the free version is GPL and the gap between the free
version and PRO version has deepened - while what we actually need a
smaller gap between them.

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Licences

[Michael Bode]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> I think that is the real problem here. When I talked with AdaCore they said
> that cheaper offers made no sense and there was the free version for that.
> Problem now is that the free version is GPL and the gap between the free
> version and PRO version has deepened - while what we actually need a
> smaller gap between them.

Maybe contrary to polpular believe the big companies were just
starting to use GNAT 3.15p too and AdaCore simply wants to plug that
hole. They are sure not going to generate additional revenue from
small companies. Maybe Java gets some additional users.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: Licences

[Ludovic Brenta]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> Michael Bode wrote:
>
>> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> 
>>> I really consider a dual licence now making the GMGPL version only
>>> available to those who made a suitable donation to the
>>> projects. Even if it's only €5,-- - at least it shows good will.
>> 
>> Why not charge 14000€ per year?
>
> Because I am not greedy - I just despise freeloading.
>
>>> In only thing I would wish for from AdaCore is a zero seat offer -
>>> just a gnat tracker account with download (GMGPL) option but
>>> without priority
>> 
>> I don't think that's going to happen. I've got a quote from them
>> for GNAT Windows, Linux and GtkAda. Minimum cost is 28000€ per
>> year. When I asked for version more in the range of Microsoft's
>> offerings they told me their support is better. When I answered I
>> believe that but I would be completely happy with the kind of
>> support that GNAT GPL receives, I've got no answer.
>
> I think that is the real problem here. When I talked with AdaCore
> they said that cheaper offers made no sense and there was the free
> version for that.  Problem now is that the free version is GPL and
> the gap between the free version and PRO version has deepened -
> while what we actually need a smaller gap between them.

I agree with Martin.  Personally, I think that this gap can be filled
by "the community", provided enough people spend a little time to
report problems, fix a couple of bugs that are particularly annoying
to them, and contribute their fix to "the community".  This way, all
fixes, as well as advice on workarounds and whatnot, can be shared and
benefit everyone - including AdaCore, who eventually will receive the
fixes.  I have solid proof [1] that this works in practice.  A user of
GPS in Debian reported a problem, but I was unable to solve it myself.
I filed a bug in the Debian bug tracking system, and several other
people I'd never heard about stepped up and did solve the problem.
Then I submitted the fix back to AdaCore, and the fix is now in GPS
3.0 for everyone to enjoy.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=297980

The moral of the story is this: if you find a bug in GNAT, report it.
Every bug report is a contribution to "the community".  If you have
the time and skills to research the bug and fix it, this is better and
is another contribution to "the community".

I too despise freeloaders, but a freeloader who spends the time and
effort to report a bug in a detailed manner is no longer a freeloader
to me.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Licences

[Pascal Obry]

Martin,

> In only thing I would wish for from AdaCore is a zero seat offer - just a
> gnat tracker account with download (GMGPL) option but without priority
> support.

Labtek did that at some point (first work on GNAT 2.03a Feb 1995; last
was on 3.04a1 Jun 1996). They were packaging GNAT for Windows. The offer
was very low cost... They never succeed raising a market!

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Licences

[Martin Krischik]

Pascal Obry wrote:

> Martin,
> 
>> In only thing I would wish for from AdaCore is a zero seat offer - just a
>> gnat tracker account with download (GMGPL) option but without priority
>> support.
> 
> Labtek did that at some point (first work on GNAT 2.03a Feb 1995; last
> was on 3.04a1 Jun 1996). They were packaging GNAT for Windows. The offer
> was very low cost... They never succeed raising a market!

I can understand that - and I have heard similar from AdaCore. Only it is
slightly for AdaCore: They package it anyway, GnatTracker is running anyway
- all for the "real" customers. A zero seat offer would not cost them
anything extra - unless - they fear they would "real" customers to a zero
seat offer.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Licences

[Randy Brukardt]

"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:diqjlf$j15$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
...
> I would have thought that this was an ideal opportunity for an Aonix or
> an RRS to step in with a personal $0-zero support version of their
compiler.
>
> Aonix do have one but the restrictions it imposes are so large that you
> can't develop anything of any note on it.
>
> RRS do ship a low-cost compiler but when you can get a free
> C/Delphi/C++/Java compiler, it is hard to justify even that small amount
> - and a lot of student simply can't even afford <$100 - especially when
> there is a new iPodWhatever every 6 months! ;-)
>
> Surely, a $0 compiler, that could be used outside of the GPL, would open
> the Ada world up to many more people and that in turn would create
> demand for paid-for products and/or support?

We've thought about it on several occasions. But there are parts of our
Windows package that we don't own (and we have to pay royalities on), and
those would have to be replaced by something else in order to make a free
version available. We could easily do it with our Ada 83 MS-DOS compilers --
but who cares??

We're still thinking about it, and perhaps at some point something will be
available. But don't hold your breath waiting...

                        Randy.

Re: Licences

[Martin Dowie]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> We've thought about it on several occasions. But there are parts of our
> Windows package that we don't own (and we have to pay royalities on), and
> those would have to be replaced by something else in order to make a free
> version available.

Stick a specification out here and perhaps someone would be kind enough 
to donate a new version! :-)

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Licences

[Marco]

It seems that a BSD style open source Ada runtime library needs to be
created (compiled with GNAT).
But is there enough steam left in the Ada community to support this
endeavour?

 AdaCore obviously needs to force it's hand to stay in business and it
can't discriminate between the small fry and the large aerospace giants
which actually buys it's products.

Re: Licences

[Martin Dowie]

Marco wrote:
> It seems that a BSD style open source Ada runtime library needs to be
> created (compiled with GNAT).
> But is there enough steam left in the Ada community to support this
> endeavour?
> 
>  AdaCore obviously needs to force it's hand to stay in business and it
> can't discriminate between the small fry and the large aerospace giants
> which actually buys it's products.

I can kind of understand where AdaCore are coming from...

...on one hand the GPL is ultimately what 'Free' Software is all about, 
isn't it? And when you hear of companies sticking satellites into space 
using GNAT _3.15p_ then there is clearly revenue there that they are 
just not getting (and need as much as any other business).

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Licences

[Björn Persson]

Marco wrote:
> It seems that a BSD style open source Ada runtime library needs to be
> created (compiled with GNAT).

Why BSD style? GMGPL has been just fine for ten years. Update the FSF 
branch of Libgnat instead of starting from scratch!

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Licences

[Ludovic Brenta]

Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:
> Marco wrote:
>> It seems that a BSD style open source Ada runtime library needs to
>> be created (compiled with GNAT).  But is there enough steam left in
>> the Ada community to support this endeavour?  AdaCore obviously
>> needs to force it's hand to stay in business and it can't
>> discriminate between the small fry and the large aerospace giants
>> which actually buys it's products.
>
> I can kind of understand where AdaCore are coming from...
>
> ...on one hand the GPL is ultimately what 'Free' Software is all about, 
> isn't it? And when you hear of companies sticking satellites into space 
> using GNAT _3.15p_ then there is clearly revenue there that they are 
> just not getting (and need as much as any other business).

OTOH, such companies would be perfectly happy with GNAT GPL 2005
Edition, since they don't really distribute their software to anyone -
they just dispatch it, physically, into orbit :)

Here the issue is not licensing, it is whether the commercial support
provided by AdaCore is worth the money to these companies.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Licences

[Björn Persson]

Martin Dowie wrote:
> ....on one hand the GPL is ultimately what 'Free' Software is all about, 
> isn't it? And when you hear of companies sticking satellites into space 
> using GNAT _3.15p_ then there is clearly revenue there that they are 
> just not getting (and need as much as any other business).

AdaCore doesn't sell sticking-satellites-into-space licenses that you 
have to buy before you may stick satellites into space. What they sell 
is support. If you pay they'll answer your questions and prioritize your 
bug reports. If you feel that you can program satellites without asking 
AdaCore about anything, then you're free to do so.

You're implying that those companies who have been using Gnat 3.15p will 
prefer Gnat Pro over Gnat GPL. Why is that? If it's the same company 
that writes the program and builds the satellite, then they only use the 
software internally so the GPL doesn't apply. And even if the satellite 
software would have to be GPL'd, would it really matter that much? They 
weren't going to base their business on selling lots of copies of closed 
source satellite software anyway, because who would buy it? Other 
satellites will need other programs.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Licences

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <87ach6ecah.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:
>> Marco wrote:
>>> It seems that a BSD style open source Ada runtime library needs to
>>> be created (compiled with GNAT).  But is there enough steam left in
>>> the Ada community to support this endeavour?  AdaCore obviously
>>> needs to force it's hand to stay in business and it can't
>>> discriminate between the small fry and the large aerospace giants
>>> which actually buys it's products.
>>
>> I can kind of understand where AdaCore are coming from...
>>
>> ...on one hand the GPL is ultimately what 'Free' Software is all about, 
>> isn't it? And when you hear of companies sticking satellites into space 
>> using GNAT _3.15p_ then there is clearly revenue there that they are 
>> just not getting (and need as much as any other business).
> 
> OTOH, such companies would be perfectly happy with GNAT GPL 2005
> Edition, since they don't really distribute their software to anyone -
> they just dispatch it, physically, into orbit :)

No, most of them transfer it to the US Government, who do the launch.
Most space companies do not launch their own product.

Re: Licences

[Niklas Holsti]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <87ach6ecah.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> 
>>Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:
>>
>>>Marco wrote:
>>>...on one hand the GPL is ultimately what 'Free' Software is all about, 
>>>isn't it? And when you hear of companies sticking satellites into space 
>>>using GNAT _3.15p_ then there is clearly revenue there that they are 
>>>just not getting (and need as much as any other business).
>>
>>OTOH, such companies would be perfectly happy with GNAT GPL 2005
>>Edition, since they don't really distribute their software to anyone -
>>they just dispatch it, physically, into orbit :)
> 
> 
> No, most of them transfer it to the US Government, who do the launch.

Except for most of the satellites built in Europe, Russia, Japan, 
China, India and Australia, of course (did I forget someone?). If 
their SW really ends up in the US Government, the Echelon spy 
network is better than I thought ;-)

> Most space companies do not launch their own product.

True. But the launch is often just a third-party service; the 
ultimate owner of the satellite is often not the launch 
organization, but a satellite-communications company, for example.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .

Re: Licences

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

Ludovic> Personally, I think that this gap can be filled by "the
Ludovic> community", provided enough people spend a little time to
Ludovic> report problems, fix a couple of bugs that are particularly
Ludovic> annoying to them, and contribute their fix to "the
Ludovic> community".  This way, all fixes, as well as advice on
Ludovic> workarounds and whatnot, can be shared and benefit everyone -
Ludovic> including AdaCore, who eventually will receive the fixes.

Ludovic,

are you saying that if you do a fix for the GNAT GPL edition, you will
make your fix available under the GMGPL instead of the GPL? If you
make it GPL only, AdaCore will be unable to integrate it into its own
version as it would contaminate their customers code.

I don't say that there should not be community support, of course I
agree with you on the fact that it is needed, however it only makes
sense to patch GMGPL sources if we want not to have two completely
divergent versions (AdaCore and community).

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Licences

[Ludovic Brenta]

Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> writes:

>>>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>
> Ludovic> Personally, I think that this gap can be filled by "the
> Ludovic> community", provided enough people spend a little time to
> Ludovic> report problems, fix a couple of bugs that are particularly
> Ludovic> annoying to them, and contribute their fix to "the
> Ludovic> community".  This way, all fixes, as well as advice on
> Ludovic> workarounds and whatnot, can be shared and benefit everyone
> Ludovic> - including AdaCore, who eventually will receive the fixes.
>
> Ludovic,
>
> are you saying that if you do a fix for the GNAT GPL edition, you
> will make your fix available under the GMGPL instead of the GPL? If
> you make it GPL only, AdaCore will be unable to integrate it into
> its own version as it would contaminate their customers code.

I will not do a fix on the GNAT GPL Edition, because the vote was
against it.  I will concentrate on GCC from the FSF.  I can't maintain
both.

AdaCore can integrate any patches I contribute to the FSF into GNAT
GPL Edition by dropping the special exception, as allowed specifically
by the GMGPL and the GPL.

> I don't say that there should not be community support, of course I
> agree with you on the fact that it is needed, however it only makes
> sense to patch GMGPL sources if we want not to have two completely
> divergent versions (AdaCore and community).

Agreed.  Patching the GNAT GPL Edition might make it impossible to
port patches to the FSF branch (because this would require granting
the special exception).  The other way around (revoking the special
exception) is always possible, therefore patches should be made
against the FSF tree.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.