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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx01.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Brad Moore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware 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> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.145.219.148 X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca X-Trace: 1420466343 68.145.219.148 (Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:59:03 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:59:03 UTC Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:59:05 -0700 X-Received-Bytes: 4517 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3857501165 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24365 Date: 2015-01-05T06:59:05-07:00 List-Id: 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