Re: Precisely why can't official FSF GNAT maintainers copy bug fixes in GNAT & its GCC-contained runtime en masse from GNAT GPL Community Edition?

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 7:44:54 AM UTC-5, Luke A. Guest wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, that would be a far better way to put it, thanks.
> > 
> > What I was trying to say was that there are two distinct versions
> > of the GNAT compiler and that changes are pushed in one direction only.
> 
> It’s more likely to be three branches with the CODE flowing like:
> 
> GNAT Pro -> GNAT GPL -> FSF GNAT

Yes, that is how I suspect that it is as well.

The question is where precisely historically did each of the files is the GNAT-Pro branch originate?  I suspect that even the oldest of these are files whose rights to copy were assigned to FSF by NYU 1992 to 1993, likely predating even the formation of AdaCore (and its twin in France).  My suspicion is that even AdaCore depends on the GMGPL (as any third party would) to license these NYU-authored files in the GNAT Pro branch, especially the oldest ones dating all the way back to NYU.  (Subsequent assignments of rights to copy to FSF •might• have placed newer first-written-by-AdaCore files in the same category too.)

Does anyone have a copy of the Air Force contract with NYU to write the Ada9X Project's compiler?