Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available

[Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com>]

David Trudgett wrote:
> Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>David Trudgett wrote:
>>
>>>The GCC compiler is also licensed under the GPL, which allows the
>>>development and distribution of proprietary software using that
>>>compiler. Could you please explain here on comp.lang.ada how the same
>>>licence can have two different effects, one for GCC, and another for
>>>GNAT?
>>
>>We will have to wait and see if they respond but in general questions
>>like this to AdaCore usually come back (correctly) with "consult your
>>own qualified legal council for advise"...
> 
> 
> It has been little more than 24 hours since I made my reasonable
> request for a public explanation, and I expect that they are still
> working on a suitable reply. "Consult legal counsel for advice," would
> not be a reasonable reply, because I am not asking for legal advice, I
> am asking them to publicly justify their action. Being unable or
> unwilling to publicly justify what they have done would, I speculate,
> have a negative impact upon their image as, for example, it might
> justifiably be interpreted as a snub to the Ada community (or at least
> that section which frequents c.l.a).
> 
> If AdaCore were to respond citing only a pure technical reason for the
> difference between GCC and GNAT, along the lines that the C and C++
> run-time licenses give freedom to developers, but the GNAT run-time
> has had this freedom revoked, then AdaCore may find themselves in a
> little spot of bother. This is because in that case it would be quite
> apparent they are unwilling to explain their motives, and people will
> be left to draw conclusions about that which will probably be
> negative.
> 
> If AdaCore responds with silence, the result will be somewhat similar,
> though less decisive. So, if I were AdaCore and had something to hide
> about my motivations, then I would definitely fail to reply.
> 
> The explanation AdaCore comes up with must explain how restricting the
> freedom of developers to license their own work in the way most
> suitable to them, does not prove contempt of the very principles of
> freedom that the GPL is supposed to be defending. Maybe they have such
> an explanation, and (for all of us) to find out what it is, is the
> purpose of my enquiry.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>But the short ** non-qualified ** answer is that whether programming
>>in C,C++ or Ada, there is generally some run-time library that one
>>links against for any non-trivial programs (ok..there are probably
>>non-trivial programs that can be 100% run-time free.)...
>>
>>In any case, with GCC for C one usually links against the the OS libc
>>which is non-GPL (or at least has that option)
>>
>>For C++, the GCC runtime library has a "special exception" clause like
>>the GNAT-3.15 runtime used to have.
>>
>>For Ada, the runtime (and supporting libraries) which are extensive
>>used to be GPL with the special exception that prevented having to
>>apply the GPL to programs that "make use of" the library.
>>
>>In this AdaCore version, they have removed the exception. One can only
>>assume 
> 
> 
> Avoiding assumptions is a good reason for my question to Jamie.
> 
> 
> 
>>that they negotiated this with the FSF (who is the copyright
>>holder on most of this even though it was mostly developed by
>>AdaCore). FSF probably would not have a problem with it anyway since
>>the more "Free" it is the more they like it. 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it is demonstrably less free. Previously, there were
> no restrictions on what a GNAT developer could produce. Now, a GNAT
> GPL developer will be restricted to producing GPL products. Too bad if
> the developer wants to license under some other Free licence (for
> instance). Anyone can easily see that we are going from more free to
> less free in this sequence of events, and, furthermore, that this
> reduction in developer freedom does not increase the protection of the
> compiler or run-time against those who would like to make proprietary
> versions of them.
> 




I think you need to go read the materials at gnu.org because 
freedom/free in their terms does not mean what you want it to mean. (Or 
at least you misunderstood what I meant when i used the quoted "Free") 
It is the stated position of the FSF that software should be "free". 
What they mean by that is not that developers should be free to do what 
they want. What the FSF wants is for end users to be free to get acess 
to source code for which they have binaries and for them to be free to 
give the source to others.  Several years ago they changed the acroynm 
for the Library GNU Public License (LGPL) to Lesser GNU Public License 
because the FSF believes it to be less "free".

It has been stated by people here (again not AdaCore) they they did not 
need the permission of the FSF (the copyright holder) in order to remove 
the special exception. I have not looked at that issue in detail but it 
certainly makes sense.


You also said

> 
> 
> As a final comment, I would add that I am not against the GPL in any
> way except where it is used to gratuitously limited other people's
> freedoms. The purpose of the GPL is to protect the freedom of
> software, not to force other people to produce free software. A
> compiler is a special class of program that allows the GPL to be
> abused, because the *purpose* of a compiler is to facilitate the

This is not correct. The purpose of the GPL IS to force people to write 
free software. There are plenty examples of libraries out there (GNU 
Scientific Library for example) that are plain old general purpose 
libraries that are distributed under the GPL. The intent is that if you 
simply link with that library, your code must be distributed under the GPL.

Note I am not saying I agree or disagree with what Stallman had in mind 
when he created the GPL..I am trying to say that AdaCore's approach is 
consistant with it.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html



Finally, for anyone that does not like this new distribution approach 
(and to a large extent I include myself in this pool), just make believe 
that AdaCore has not released a new version and continue to use the one 
built into your distribuion or one built from the FSF tree...

It is hard to see how you are any worse off as a result of this.