From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.182.80.198 with SMTP id t6mr582818obx.31.1422541527728;
 Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:25:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.33.38 with SMTP id o6mr3661obi.16.1422541527587; Thu, 29
 Jan 2015 06:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!hl2no4305547igb.0!news-out.google.com!qk8ni19963igc.0!nntp.google.com!hl2no4305546igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:25:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4984c229-bdcd-4032-bd88-cde66482e6df@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=173.18.241.25;
 posting-account=HQu3XwoAAACgXAZiVLlGuYCkuhxw8i0w
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.18.241.25
References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad>
 <199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com>
 <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com>
 <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <d865c2cd-dd78-4dd9-8ca5-7526bc781faf@googlegroups.com>
 <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <bb6afd60-da67-4b0a-93ca-2921b985cc3e@googlegroups.com>
 <m8ds96$po2$1@news.albasani.net> <m8em0g$a03$2@dont-email.me>
 <4984c229-bdcd-4032-bd88-cde66482e6df@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8b159aa5-e3f2-423f-909d-c643f0ea619d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware
From: "Jedi Tek'Unum" <jeditekunum@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:25:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:192100
Date: 2015-01-29T06:25:27-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:58:35 AM UTC-6, Lucretia wrote:
> On Monday, 5 January 2015 18:43:57 UTC, Jeffrey Carter  wrote:
> > The GNAT Pro/GNAT GPL dichotomy seems unique: two products with essentially
> > identical features, differing only in the run-time license. Perhaps we should
> > dub GNAT GPL "RTL-ware".
> 
> They're not identical feature-wise. Pro has more work put into it than GPL as does GPL over FSF. 
> Therefore, it is crippleware as FSF is buggier than GPL and GPL is buggier than Pro. One feature 
> in Pro may be completely broken in FSF and partially working in GPL. God, it took them years to 
> sort out interfaces.

So how does this play out over time?  Is GPL x years behind and FSF is 2*x years behind?  Does the whole chain evolve over time?  In x more years is GPL the same as Pro today?  Overall is it worse than anything else (clang/llvm for example)?