Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

[Brad Moore <brad.moore@shaw.ca>]

On 15-01-05 04:38 AM, David Botton wrote:
> If the impressionion is Ada is available only for open source or high end niche that leaves most of the world in the middle. That is not Ada advocacy that is harmful.
>
> David Botton
>

But Ada is not GNAT, and the fact that there is also a free version of 
GNAT available should provide coverage for those in the middle who want 
something for free. In addition, there are also other compilers 
available that have other pricing models.

If the impression is that Ada is available only for open source or high 
end niche, that is a false impression. Changing licenses of GNAT-GPL to 
address a false impression doesn't make sense to me. It would make more 
sense to do a better job of propagating a better impression based on fact.

Are there websites propagating this false impression that need to be 
corrected?

If I search for "Ada Programming Language" the top search result I get 
back is this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_%28programming_language%29

On this page, it mentions GNAT, but does not mention other compiler 
vendors, nor does it mention the various flavors of GNAT, except under 
the section on history with this sentence.

"A number of commercial companies began offering Ada compilers and 
associated development tools, including Alsys, Telesoft, DDC-I, Advanced 
Computer Techniques, Tartan Laboratories, TLD Systems, and others."


I think it would be helpful if this page also had a section or a link to 
a more comprehensive list of the various versions of Ada compilers that 
are currently available.

If I follow the hyperlink to GNAT, I end up at a page that describes the 
licensing with the following;

"The compiler is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public 
License. The "GNAT GPL Edition" of the runtime is licensed under the GNU 
General Public License while the "GNAT Pro Edition" is under the GNAT 
Modified General Public License. All versions leading up to and 
including 3.15p are licensed under the GMGPL. GNAT-FSF is included 
within the GNU Compiler Collection with the GMGPL license governing the 
runtime, it corresponds to the GNAT-GPL version of the previous year 
(about 9 months apart). At version 4.4, the runtime was relicensed under 
the GPL version 3 with the GCC Runtime Library Exception.[2] GNAT-FSF is 
part of most major GNU/Linux or BSD distributions.

The GMGPL license in either GNAT Pro runtime or GNAT-FSF runtime permits 
software that is licensed under a license that is incompatible with the 
GPL to be linked with the output of Ada standard generic libraries that 
are supplied with GNAT without breaching the license agreement. 
Conversely, the GPL license of either GNAT GPL runtime or GNAT GAP 
runtime requires software that is linked with the standard libraries to 
be a GPL-compatible license to avoid being in breach of the license 
agreement."

It seems pretty clear to me how the variants of licensing work, but 
perhaps this could be improved upon to provide better clarity.

For instance, I think the first sentence gives the impression that GNAT 
is GPL. It's not until you read further where you learn about other 
variants. So I think the first sentence should be changed.

Brad