* Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far @ 2005-09-17 15:21 Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 18:53 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-17 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Please do not reply on this thread. I'm posting here so that the results are not buried in the long thread where the discussion is being held. Unless someone calls for additional delays, the vote closes on Tuesday, 2005-09-20 at 22:00 CET. You can vote either publicly on c.l.a, or by private mail to me. You can also change your vote until the deadline. The votes so far: Voter gnat-gpl gnat-3.4 gnat-4.0 gnat-3.4+patches WAIT ------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Wrigley -1 Andreas Schwartz -1 Björn Persson -1 Brian May 1 1 Chris Danx -1 1 David Trudgett -1 Georg Bauhaus 1 Jacob Sparre Andersen -1 1 2 Jeff Creem -1 Jeffrey Carter -1 Marc A. Criley -1 1 2 Niklas Holsti -1 Samuel Tardieu -1 1 2 Simon Clubley -1 1 2 Stéphane Rivière -1 1 2 Tapio Kelloniemi 1 2 Anonymous#1 2 1 -1 Anonymous#2 -1 TOTALS -11 6 11 0 1 As you can see there is one vote to "wait". I don't know exactly what Georg means by this. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-17 15:21 Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-20 18:53 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 18:56 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-20 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Here are the final results of the vote. I thought I'd leave the vote open, but so few new votes have been cast recently that the results can no longer change. Voter gnat-gpl gnat-3.4 gnat-4.0 gnat-3.4+patches WAIT Adrian Wrigley -1 Andreas Schwartz -1 Björn Persson -1 Brian May 1 1 Chris Danx -1 1 David Gressett -1 David Trudgett -1 Georg Bauhaus 1 Jacob Sparre Andersen -1 1 2 Jeff Creem -1 Jeffrey Carter -1 Marc A. Criley -1 1 2 Niklas Holsti -1 Samuel Tardieu -1 1 2 Simon Clubley -1 1 2 Simon Wright 1 Stéphane Rivière -1 1 2 Tapio Kelloniemi 1 2 Wojtek Narczynski -1 1 Xavier Grave 2 1 Anonymous #1 2 1 -1 Anonymous #2 -1 Anonymous #3 -1 TOTALS: -11 6 16 0 1 And here is a summary of the arguments that were presented, in no particular order. In these summaries I've tried not to take sides, but please forgive me if I've misrepresented your own pet argument. The text below will appear in the next edition of the Debian Policy for Ada, in an appendix. If I've missed an interesting argument or if you think I am being offensive, please correct me. I've tried to keep the summaries short and to the point, at the expense of nuance. The anarchist argument: it is immoral for AdaCore to dictate how libgnat should be used; everyone should be free to use libgnat however they see fit, and the GPL uses violent but lawful means to make this impossible. Therefore, everyone should reject the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The Free Software argument: it is immoral to write non-free software; it is even more immoral to use a free software library such as libgnat in non-free software. It is appropriate to make this illegal by releasing libgnat under the GPL. Therefore, everyone should embrace GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The Other Free Software argument: we make Free Software under a license which is incompatible in some ways with the GPL (e.g. the BSD license). The GPL prohibits linking libgnat with our software and distributing our binaries. Therefore, we reject the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The selfish argument: we make commercial proprietary software with GNAT, but we cannot or will not pay for GNAT Pro. If libgnat is under GPL, we can no longer distribute our proprietary software. Therefore, we reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The interoperability argument: our software has to link with non-free software which is outside our control, and the license of which prohibits use of GPLed libraries (variant: we link with other Free libraries which are under licenses not compatible with the GPL); therefore, we are forced to reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The betrayed author's argument: I made contributions to the software that is now supported commercially by AdaCore, with the understanding that the license was the GMGPL. AdaCore revoked the special permission without consulting me. While this is specifically allowed by the GPL, I feel betrayed. Therefore, I reject the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The technical quality argument: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is the best available Ada compiler. GCC 3.4 is not as up-to-date with respect to Ada 2006, and GCC 4.0 is less stable. Therefore, we should embrace GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. The marketing argument: licensing libgnat under the GPL hinders promotion of Ada, especially to small businesses. The move tries to promote Free Software at the expense of Ada. Free Software does not need much promotion while Ada does. Therefore, we should reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. *Moving forward* Given the results of the vote, I will not package GNAT GPL Edition for Debian. Given the anticipated timeline for the development of Etch (outlined below), I can do a one-, two- or three-stage transition. *Timeline for the development of Etch* Roughly speaking, the tentative timeline is: June 2005 - Sarge released. gcc-4.0 enters Etch. Transition from g++-3.3 to g++-4.0 begins for all C++ binaries. Other transitions also begin, some of which are completed already today. September 2005 - Java and Treelang compilers, and some libraries from gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 removed from Etch. April or May 2006 - GCC 4.1 released, and enters Etch soon thereafter. If good enough, becomes the default C, C++ and Java compiler, and gcc-4.0 is removed from Etch. No ABI transition: GCC 4.0 and 4.1 are both supposed to have the same ABI as 3.4. September 2006 - toolchain freeze. Only release-critical updates allowed for gcc. No ABI transitions allowed, i.e. shared libraries may not change their soname anymore. October 2006 - general freeze. Only release-critical updates allowed for all packages. December 2006 - Etch released. *Possible scenarios* One-stage transition, between May and September 2006, to gnat-4.1. Pros: less work for me. GNAT 3.15p remains available for longer for those who need a reliable ASIS and GLADE. Cons: Etch users must wait another 8 to 12 months. Must port ASIS and GLADE from GNAT GPL to a new compiler back-end: help required, I cannot do this by myself. Two-stage transition to gnat-4.0 in October-December 2005, and to gnat-4.1 as above. Pros: more immediate support for amd64, powerpc64 and several other platforms. More immediate availability of Ada 200y features. Cons: immature Ada 200y features. The compiler may prove less stable than 3.4. Must port ASIS and GLADE from GNAT GPL to a new compiler back-end: help required, I cannot do this by myself. More work. Three-stage transition to gnat-3.4, then gnat-4.0, then gnat-4.1. Pros: stable compiler. Allows a fall-back in case the transition to gnat-4.0 proves difficult. More immediate availability of new platforms and some Ada 200y features. ASIS and GLADE are probably easy to port from GNAT GPL Edition. Cons: the Ada 200y features in gnat-3.4 are already obsolete. Still more work to do. Any thoughts, offers to help, advice? -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-20 18:53 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-20 18:56 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 22:38 ` Björn Persson 2005-09-21 0:08 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-20 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw) One last-minute vote I just received. As anticipated, this does not change the bottom line. Voter gnat-gpl gnat-3.4 gnat-4.0 gnat-3.4+patches WAIT Ali Bendriss 1 TOTALS: -11 7 16 0 1 -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-20 18:53 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 18:56 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-20 22:38 ` Björn Persson 2005-09-21 7:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-21 0:08 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-09-20 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Three-stage transition to gnat-3.4, then gnat-4.0, then gnat-4.1. > Pros: [...] ASIS and GLADE are probably > easy to port from GNAT GPL Edition. I understand how they would probably be easy to port to 3.4, but do you really mean that it would be easier to port them to 4.1 in this scenario than in the one-stage and two-stage scenarios? -- Björn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-20 22:38 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-09-21 7:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-21 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Björn Persson a écrit : > Ludovic Brenta wrote: > > Three-stage transition to gnat-3.4, then gnat-4.0, then gnat-4.1. > > Pros: [...] ASIS and GLADE are probably > > easy to port from GNAT GPL Edition. > > I understand how they would probably be easy to port to 3.4, but do you > really mean that it would be easier to port them to 4.1 in this scenario > than in the one-stage and two-stage scenarios? Well, it was late in the evening and my mind was getting sloppy. I meant to say that ASIS and GLADE could be ported to 3.4, and provide a fall-back in case subsequent porting to 4.0 or 4.1 proved difficult. Also, the porting effort to 3.4 would allow me (and anyone who contributes) to gain some valuable experience with them, thus making porting to 4.0 or 4.1 less difficult. I forgot to mention the other possible two-stage transition: to gnat-3.4 starting in October 2005, then directly to 4.1 in May-June 2006. The more I think about it, the more it appears to provide the best balance between risk (3.4 acts as the fall-back solution), platform support, Ada 200y features, and workload. The first stage would not be intended to bring Ada 200y, only new platforms, because as I said the Ada 200y features in gnat-3.4 are already obsolete; the second stage, to 4.1, would provide up-to-date Ada 200y features. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-20 18:53 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 18:56 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 22:38 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-09-21 0:08 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-21 4:41 ` Simon Wright 2005-09-22 7:20 ` Steve Whalen 2 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-21 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:53:59 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: <various arguments cut> I think the following aren't in your list: The FUD argument: by having an unusal and restrictive licence for the users' executables, people will be forced to read and understand the detail of the licenses, consult lawyers, perhaps change their distribution plans, now or in the future. The GMGPL versions are simple, creating no fear, uncertainty or doubt over their use. Choosing the GNAT GPL 2005 incurs extra risk, cost and effort to comply. The damage to the GMGPL versions: if distributions and users move to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the GMGPL versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded. This is likely to be a major disbenefit for those needing GMGPL versions. Supports ACT policy of withdrawing Ada technologies from free use: makes it more likely that GtkAda, GLADE, AWS etc will be completely unavailable in fully free (GMGPL) form, pushing the costs of using Ada well beyond those of comparable technologies. ($$$$$, instead of <$$) It's not what users expect: users of free compilers expect to be able to use their compiled code in any manner they see fit. This is true of all of the mainstream languages (C, C++, etc). The surprise aspect focuses attention away from the benefits of Ada, and may also result in accidental violations of the licence. -- I think it is likely that the situation will worsen rapidly over the next few years, with the effect that there will be *no* fully free Ada 2005 compiler and *no* fully free GtkAda, GLADE, AWS, ASIS, Florist either. The benefit (if any) to ACT will be negligable, but the disbenefit to Ada and the user community will be significant. Already it is a challenge to obtain a complete suite of tools that isn't seriously obsolescent :( A quick check of Gtk and other Gtk bindings find C++, C#, etc all are fully free (so just using them places no additional restrictions on the executable). Ceasing development of the unrestricted Ada bindings just puts Ada further out on a limb as a weird, impracticable or expensive option. People don't expect free language interface to a free (LGPL) library to result in legally encumbered binaries. How much would you have to pay ACT to make regular public releases of GNAT with libraries under the GMGPL style licensing? Even just every two years would be sufficient. Logically, it needn't cost more than the cost of the work involved plus profit margin plus any expected loss of profit by it being made available. Couldn't a sponsor be found? The DoD invested huge amounts in the past. Sponsoring fully free releases of GNAT would be one of the best ways of retaining and enhancing the value of their investment. Unfortunately, the issue will be constantly with us until current, fully free versions of the software are available. I hope this will not be too long. -- Adrian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-21 0:08 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-21 4:41 ` Simon Wright 2005-09-21 12:16 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-22 7:20 ` Steve Whalen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-09-21 4:41 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > The damage to the GMGPL versions: if distributions and users move > to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the GMGPL > versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded. This is likely > to be a major disbenefit for those needing GMGPL versions. I don't know whether _you_ believe this -- it's worth noting that the people who pay AdaCore are paying for a GMGPL compiler, it has to cost AdaCore (even if only a little) to make a GPL release. BTW, what's the licensing on the GAP sources? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-21 4:41 ` Simon Wright @ 2005-09-21 12:16 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-21 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:41:50 +0100, Simon Wright wrote: > "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > >> The damage to the GMGPL versions: if distributions and users move >> to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the GMGPL >> versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded. This is likely >> to be a major disbenefit for those needing GMGPL versions. > > I don't know whether _you_ believe this -- it's worth noting that the > people who pay AdaCore are paying for a GMGPL compiler, it has to cost > AdaCore (even if only a little) to make a GPL release. OK. This was unclear. I was referring to the freely available (public) GMGPL versions, not the paid-for GMGPL versions. The evidence suggests that ACT no longer intends to freely distribute the GMGPL Ada technologies discussed by periodic public releases. Compilers based on the widely distributed GMGPL sources seem to be seriously lagging ACT's paid-for GMGPL compilers, lacking fixes and enhancements. -- Adrian Try: >> The damage to the GMGPL versions: if distributions and users move >> to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the >> public GMGPL versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded. This >> is likely to be a major disbenefit for those needing GMGPL versions. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-21 0:08 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-21 4:41 ` Simon Wright @ 2005-09-22 7:20 ` Steve Whalen 2005-09-22 11:50 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Steve Whalen @ 2005-09-22 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Thanks for this summary. I think these are by far the most important issues to be included in the Debian log (or whatever it's called). It would be nice if a sponsor could be found to pay AdaCore to do GMGPL releases periodically, but I'm starting to wonder if AdaCore/ACT always intended to "go proprietary" as soon as they could. With as "soon as they could" being whenever another "version" of Ada was standardized that was NOT called Ada95. During the first 5 years or so of GNAT's life AdaCore seemed to genuinely believe in the benefits of having a completely free compiler available, at least they convinced me. Of course they may just have been saying it because the DOD was paying them to make a free compiler available and so they had to. It's my understanding that the GNAT Ada95 compiler was basically built with DOD $$$ on the condition that it be free for all uses and users (but ACT and others were free to charge for support as long as a compiler remained free). This specifically included the libraries being under a LGPL / GMGPL type license. If the Ada2005 compiler from ACT is built primarily on the Ada95 compiler (as opposed to a complete rewrite of the compiler code and support tools) then I think AdaCore is coming pretty close to violating the spirt (but I'm sure not a lawyer's reading) of the DOD contract that created GNAT. By "closing" off the creation of commercial applications with the GPL'd Ada2005 compiler the Ada2005 compiler would no longer meet that requirement of the original Ada95 DOD compiler contract. I hate to see this happen to what I think is one of the best decisions made by our Department of Defense (creating the free Ada95 compiler to help offset the removal of the "Ada mandate"). What AdaCore is doing certainly seems to violate the spirit of the contract that enabled the creation of GNAT (unless of course the Ada2005 compiler uses none of the work product created under the DOD Ada95 contract in the Ada2005 compiler: my understanding is that Ada2005 contains a lot of Ada95 code but I haven't compared them). The bottom line is that neither GNAT nor AdaCore would exist without that DOD contract for Ada95. Something sure has changed: here's a lengthy but relevant quote from Robert Dewar from about 10 years ago (for anyone who doesn't know who he is, I'll keep it simple and call him one of the principle architects and driving forces behind the GNAT compilers up through at least release 3.xx and probably beyond): (quoting from comp.lang.ada: Robert Dewar Aug 2 1995, 12:00 am) ... For example, the contract between NYU and the Federal Government requires that the compiler be distributed uner the GPL and LGPL. Suppose instead that it had been distributed under the public domain. In that case, Ada Core Technologies (or any other company, but this most often happens with the original authors) could take the existing PD product, continue to develop it, market it at whatever price the market would bear, and treat it as a fully proprietary product. This would presumably be fine for those willing to pay big $$$ for Ada products, and might indeed make the GNAT authors richer. This scenario has certainly played itself out with other products that were initially in the public domain. The trouble is that then, although the public domain version continues to exist, it languishes, and pretty soon, is left in the dust by the commercial version, and people find themselves forced to pay high prices or left in the cold. The nice thing about the use of the GPL is that it entirely prevents this from happening. If someone pays SGI, or ACT, or any other company to enhance and maintain GNAT, then all the improvements and changes are guaranteed to be available to those who need an Ada compiler to work with but do not need commercial level support. This is a much better model for the whole community I think. Yes, of course it is the case that other Ada vendors would prefer to be able to grab public domain stuff without being encumbered by the restrictions of the GPL, so of course they would prefer that all the volunteers out there provide them with free code they can use. That's perfectly understandable. Now if this continued fredom were achieved at the expense of seriously limiting use of the resulting software, that would be an unfortunate side effect. In a world with no proprietary software, they there would be no issue. In recognition of a more practical world in which free software and proprietary software continue to co-exist, the modules of GNU C and G++ are distributed with four different levels of licensing ranging from the GPL, to completely unrestricted, with two other levels in between. The status of each module is chosen to achieve an appropriate balance between trying to maintain the free availability of the software and trying to maintain its reasonably unrestricted use. This has been quite comfortably achieved with GNU C, which has been used by a wide variety of users in a wide variety of commercial and technical settings, and there is no reason to think that GNAT will not be able to achieve the same appropriate balance. (end of quote) I think AdaCore/ACT has lost that "appropriate balance". Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 7:20 ` Steve Whalen @ 2005-09-22 11:50 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-22 13:11 ` Samuel Tardieu ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-22 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Whalen a écrit : > Thanks for this summary. I think these are by far the most > important issues to be included in the Debian log (or whatever it's > called). The Debian changelog is specific to each package, so I'll put this into a new version of the debian-ada-policy package. > It would be nice if a sponsor could be found to pay AdaCore to do > GMGPL releases periodically, but I'm starting to wonder if > AdaCore/ACT always intended to "go proprietary" as soon as they > could. With as "soon as they could" being whenever another "version" > of Ada was standardized that was NOT called Ada95. AdaCore has not "gone proprietary", GNAT is, remains and will always remain Free Software. [...] > It's my understanding that the GNAT Ada95 compiler was basically > built with DOD $$$ on the condition that it be free for all uses and > users (but ACT and others were free to charge for support as long as > a compiler remained free). This specifically included the libraries > being under a LGPL / GMGPL type license. If memory serves, that that was done at the insistence of the NYU team who wrote the software, and then formed AdaCore. But I wasn't there so I cannot say for sure. > By "closing" off the creation of commercial applications with the > GPL'd Ada2005 compiler the Ada2005 compiler would no longer meet > that requirement of the original Ada95 DOD compiler contract. The GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is an *additional* service rendered at no cost to people who develop GPL software. This service consists in the compiling, packaging and validation of the entire tool chain. The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software. If some "greedy proprietary capitalist" now complains that the convenience of a recent and validated binary distribution has been removed from them, that's correct but I think it is immoral for them to complain that they can no longer *conveniently* enslave and bind their customers into captivity. They can still enslave and bind and make things inconvenient or impossible for their customers, but now they have to go through some inconvenience themselves. They deserve it. I do feel sympathy for Free software developers who wish to distribute their programs under non-GPL but Free licenses. The "interoperability argument" is powerful. > (quoting from comp.lang.ada: > > Robert Dewar Aug 2 1995, 12:00 am) [...] > Now if this continued fredom were achieved at the expense of > seriously limiting use of the resulting software, that would be an > unfortunate side effect. In a world with no proprietary software, > they there would be no issue. In recognition of a more practical > world in which free software and proprietary software continue to > co-exist, the modules of GNU C and G++ are distributed with four > different levels of licensing ranging from the GPL, to completely > unrestricted, with two other levels in between. The status of each > module is chosen to achieve an appropriate balance between trying to > maintain the free availability of the software and trying to > maintain its reasonably unrestricted use. This has been quite > comfortably achieved with GNU C, which has been used by a wide > variety of users in a wide variety of commercial and technical > settings, and there is no reason to think that GNAT will not be able > to achieve the same appropriate balance. > > (end of quote) > > I think AdaCore/ACT has lost that "appropriate balance". I think that 10 years have passed since that quote, and free software has now reached a state where it no longer has be nice to proprietary software developers. The special permission was granted only for practical reasons, which I think have now largely disappeared. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 11:50 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-22 13:11 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-09-22 13:44 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-09-22 16:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-09-22 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: Ludovic> Steve Whalen a �crit : >> It's my understanding that the GNAT Ada95 compiler was basically >> built with DOD $$$ on the condition that it be free for all uses >> and users (but ACT and others were free to charge for support as >> long as a compiler remained free). This specifically included the >> libraries being under a LGPL / GMGPL type license. Ludovic> If memory serves, that that was done at the insistence of the Ludovic> NYU team who wrote the software, and then formed AdaCore. Ludovic> But I wasn't there so I cannot say for sure. What was done at the insistance of the NYU team? Build a Free Software compiler? I am quite certain it was a DoD requirement. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 11:50 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-22 13:11 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-09-22 13:44 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-09-22 14:34 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-22 16:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-09-22 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:50:45 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > The GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is an *additional* service rendered at no > cost to people who develop GPL software. This service consists in the > compiling, packaging and validation of the entire tool chain. > > The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is > still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has > just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software. Ok then. Where GNAT 3.15 can be downloaded now? ACT don't give such an opportunity any more :-( Where is CVS tree? Where GNAT 3.15 is hosted? The worst is that, IMHO, ACT pretends that there is no such compiler at all. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 13:44 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-09-22 14:34 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-24 13:45 ` Frank 2005-09-26 9:39 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-22 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Stanislav Tsekhmistroh a écrit : > Ok then. Where GNAT 3.15 can be downloaded now? ACT don't give such an > opportunity any more :-( Debian still contains binaries of gnat 3.15p. Also: ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/Ada-Belgium/mirrors/gnu-ada ftp://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/pub/mirror/cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat ftp://ftp.fsz.bme.hu/pub/ada/gnat Get it quickly before it disappears. > Where is CVS tree? Where GNAT 3.15 is hosted? The CVS tree is at https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/ and gcc.gnu.org. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 14:34 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-24 13:45 ` Frank 2005-09-26 9:39 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Frank @ 2005-09-24 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw) 3.15p is still available here: https://libre2.adacore.com/GNAT/ Frank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 14:34 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-24 13:45 ` Frank @ 2005-09-26 9:39 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-09-26 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw) > Debian still contains binaries of gnat 3.15p. Also: > > ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/Ada-Belgium/mirrors/gnu-ada > ftp://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/pub/mirror/cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat > ftp://ftp.fsz.bme.hu/pub/ada/gnat > > Get it quickly before it disappears. Thank you! (and thanks to God!) I thought that we have loosed GNAT 3.15p completely :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 11:50 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-22 13:11 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-09-22 13:44 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-09-22 16:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-22 18:23 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-22 19:41 ` Simon Wright 2 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-22 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:50:45 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is > still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has > just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software. The problem is that this will no longer compile "Ada" next year, since "Ada" will mean the new standard. GNAT 3.15p will become about as useful as a free Fortan 66 compiler. (and the situation is worse with things like GLADE, and GtkAda, the GMGPL versions of which will become obsolescent) -- Adrian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 16:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-22 18:23 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-23 11:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-22 19:41 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-22 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:50:45 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > >> The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is >> still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has >> just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software. > > The problem is that this will no longer compile "Ada" next year, > since "Ada" will mean the new standard. GNAT 3.15p will become about > as useful as a free Fortan 66 compiler. > Ada 95 will remain just as useful as it is today. It will not become less powerful, it will not lose features, and it will not suddenly cause your software not to work anymore. The only thing that can make GNAT 3.15p obsolete and break your software is a policy decision by the maintainers of the platforms where your software runs. When Microsoft decided to kill DOS, people who made DOS software had to move on or be left behind. But what is the platform that you are targetting today, and that concerns you? If you distribute proprietary software, you can always make your own platform, or distribute GNAT 3.15p binaries with your software. > (and the situation is worse with things like GLADE, and GtkAda, the > GMGPL versions of which will become obsolescent) This is speculation; the GMGPL version is in AdaCore's public CVS repository and nothing indicates that their license will change, or that they will notbe maintained anymore. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 18:23 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-23 11:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-24 12:17 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-23 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:23:14 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Ada 95 will remain just as useful as it is today. It will not become > less powerful, it will not lose features, and it will not suddenly > cause your software not to work anymore. OK. It won't suddenly lose capability, rather it will suffer from "bit rot" and obsolescence. Ten years from now it will not be used. > The only thing that can make GNAT 3.15p obsolete and break your > software is a policy decision by the maintainers of the platforms > where your software runs. Upgrades to the platform present a threat. For example, moving to x86-64 with 64-bit pointers. Or whatever comes next. And major upgrades to C libraries, other compilers etc. can cause maintenance problems too. My argument is that 3.15p is *obsolescent*, not *obsolete*. > But what is the platform that you are targetting today, and that > concerns you? If you distribute proprietary software, you can always > make your own platform, or distribute GNAT 3.15p binaries with your > software. I am targeting x86 Linux. I use 3.15p and GLADE (and other Ada libraries) There are bugs in both of these tools which bring me problems. My next machine will be x86-64 to get increased addressing and speed. I should probably go to a dual Opteron, GNAT GPL 2005, PolyORB etc. but the time, cost and upheaval will be significant. I want to be confident there will be real benefits and the tools will all work properly together. I am not distributing my software at present, so I don't have a direct interest in the choice of Debian compiler. I run Debian and Red Hat at present, but I'm considering moving to all Debian. In future, I may want to distribute Ada binaries or source, and don't want the opportunity to be obscured by changes in licensing of the Ada libraries. What I'd like to see is a new version of GNAT and various libraries to become predominant. A version suitable for all purposes. A version with full Ada 2005 support, when possible. A version for all the main Debian platforms. (I also run an Debian ARM system sometimes). With robust Annex E and ASIS support. I fear this this will not happen. And I don't think ACT is minded to make it happen. But I may be mistaken. > >> (and the situation is worse with things like GLADE, and GtkAda, the >> GMGPL versions of which will become obsolescent) > > This is speculation; the GMGPL version is in AdaCore's public CVS > repository and nothing indicates that their license will change, or that > they will notbe maintained anymore. Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree, but it was commented earlied in this group that the 'exception' clauses for GtkAda and one or two other libraries had been removed. I haven't seen this myself. I had got the impression, however, that GLADE wasn't being maintained. Checking the AdaCore CVS suggests I am wrong on this. But activity is moving to PolyORB, which doesn't seem ready for mission-critical Annex E use. Am am still confused about ASIS and GLADE licensing. On 15 Sep 2005 01:44:16 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Please take into account that recent versions of ASIS and GLADE are > only available under GPL, not GMGPL. The same is true for AWS, > GtkAda, XML/Ada etc. but is less of a concern because these libraries > are not tightly coupled with the compiler. but as you say, the versions in AdaCore public CVS *are* GMGPL (I checked this). Was your earlier post a mistake? Or is it more complicated than that? I had been particularly concerned earlier, since the COPYING file has no exception, but as was pointed out, the exception need not be mentioned there, and the concern was misplaced. Maybe as time progresses, we'll see that AdaCore will support a new "unversal" GNAT and libraries all under GMGPL type licensing. Let's hope so. -- Adrian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-23 11:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-24 12:17 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-24 14:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-24 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Dr. Adrian Wrigley writes: > Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> But what is the platform that you are targetting today, and that >> concerns you? If you distribute proprietary software, you can always >> make your own platform, or distribute GNAT 3.15p binaries with your >> software. > > I am targeting x86 Linux. I use 3.15p and GLADE (and other Ada > libraries) There are bugs in both of these tools which bring me > problems. My next machine will be x86-64 to get increased > addressing and speed. > > I should probably go to a dual Opteron, GNAT GPL 2005, PolyORB etc. > but the time, cost and upheaval will be significant. I want to be > confident there will be real benefits and the tools will all work > properly together. With GNAT GPL 2005, there is no guarantee but if I were you I would trust AdaCore for a distribution of excellent quality. If you trust the platform, a lot of the pain of migration goes away. But you are right: all transitions are painful. > I am not distributing my software at present, so I don't have a > direct interest in the choice of Debian compiler. I run Debian and > Red Hat at present, but I'm considering moving to all Debian. In > future, I may want to distribute Ada binaries or source, and don't > want the opportunity to be obscured by changes in licensing of the > Ada libraries. So, you've been complaining loudly against the GPL for libgnat, because of the remote possibility that you might someday decide to distribute binary-only software? Since you use both Red Hat and Debian, you know first-hand how much better Debian is, especially as an Ada development platform. But using Debian is dangerous. For one thing, it is addictive, and for another, when comes the time to deploy your binaries on other platforms, you'll find they lack half the Ada libraries you need, and that the other half (which they do provide) are buggy. You can solve this problem in a number of ways: * Target Debian and only Debian, which runs on 12 hardware architectures anyway. Who needs anything else than Debian? Make sure your target is the latest stable release of Debian, not "testing" or "unstable", and you'll get the additional benefit that the platform will not move constantly. * Assume that your targets provide *no* Ada support; assume they only conform to the Linux Standards Base (i.e. a certain glibc and a certain GCC compiler for C and C++, but no Ada). Link your binaries statically against libgnat and any other Ada libraries you require, making sure that you use GMGPL sources of these libraries (either from GNAT 3.15p or from CVS). * Assume your targets provide GCC 4.0 with Ada support, but no ASIS, no GLADE and no other libraries. The rest is as above. > What I'd like to see is a new version of GNAT and various libraries > to become predominant. A version suitable for all purposes. A > version with full Ada 2005 support, when possible. A version for > all the main Debian platforms. (I also run an Debian ARM system > sometimes). With robust Annex E and ASIS support. I fear this this > will not happen. And I don't think ACT is minded to make it happen. > But I may be mistaken. If I were AdaCore, I would feel deeply offended by the mass rejection of the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition that occured on this forum, and by the pervasiveness of the "selfish argument". So, I wouldn't count on AdaCore going out of their way to please the people who complained. If you don't want to use GNAT GPL 2005 Edition, then you have to fall back on plan B, namely Debian Etch in your case. Debian Etch will support amd64 and several other hardware platforms beyond those supported in Sarge (namely i386, powerpc and sparc). Debian Etch will have some Ada 200y features, but probably not all. This depends on how GCC 4.1 turns out. ASIS will probably work. I'll take it from Martin Krishik's SourceForge project because that's GMGPL. GLADE will probably not work at first. I'll take it from AdaCore's CVS and try to compile it against GCC (3.4, 4.0 or 4.1, not decided yet). I will probably ask you, Adrian, for help in this area. Debian Etch will not be as good as GNAT GPL 2005 Edition, and it will arrive much later. But it will support amd64. > Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree, but it was commented > earlied in this group that the 'exception' clauses for GtkAda and > one or two other libraries had been removed. I haven't seen this > myself. I had got the impression, however, that GLADE wasn't being > maintained. Checking the AdaCore CVS suggests I am wrong on this. > But activity is moving to PolyORB, which doesn't seem ready for > mission-critical Annex E use. The special permission has been removed from the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. If you take the sources from CVS on gcc.gnu.org and libre.adacore.com, you still get the GMGPL. Therefore, if you want: * the latest GNAT * Ada 2005 * amd64 support * the latest libraries * support for all "x86 linux" distributions * and the GMGPL, then go get the sources and compile them for yourself. I will do the same thing but only for Debian. You may choose to wait (several months) until this happens, or help me with it. And please understand that no matter what, it won't be as good or as up-to-Ada-2006 as GNAT GPL 2005 Edition. > Maybe as time progresses, we'll see that AdaCore will support a new > "unversal" GNAT and libraries all under GMGPL type licensing. Let's > hope so. I think it is a mistake to hope so. It is much more productive get down to work and build our own GMGPL platform. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-24 12:17 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-24 14:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-09-24 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic, c.l.a, Thanks for your views and analysis here. And thank you for devoting so much time and effort packaging for Debian and cavassing opinions on the way forward. I think in general people are taking a wide view on what would be good for Ada, GNAT and the community. The narrow selfish arguments are mainly used by the few who are directly affected. Perhaps by the end of the year, I'll have an amd64 system to transition to, and try to help in building a set of compilers and libraries to match. In the mean time, I have to focus on building my business (with is not software development, let alone building tools). -- Adrian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far 2005-09-22 16:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-22 18:23 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-22 19:41 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-09-22 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes: > The problem is that this will no longer compile "Ada" next year, > since "Ada" will mean the new standard. GNAT 3.15p will become > about as useful as a free Fortan 66 compiler. It is reasonably unlikely that my work project will upgrade to an 05 compiler. For a start, it would only cause us grief, since the product is being developed in Ada95; as an example, we have loads of packages named <something>.Interface! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-09-26 9:39 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-09-17 15:21 Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 18:53 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 18:56 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-20 22:38 ` Björn Persson 2005-09-21 7:37 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-21 0:08 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-21 4:41 ` Simon Wright 2005-09-21 12:16 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-22 7:20 ` Steve Whalen 2005-09-22 11:50 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-22 13:11 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-09-22 13:44 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-09-22 14:34 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-24 13:45 ` Frank 2005-09-26 9:39 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-09-22 16:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-22 18:23 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-23 11:54 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-24 12:17 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-24 14:40 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-09-22 19:41 ` Simon Wright
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox