GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Marc A. Criley]

(Hmm, this subject seems to have sputtered out, better get some 
gasoline... :-)

I wrote to AdaCore to ask them what their maintenance and upgrade 
intentions were for the GNAT GPL Edition.

I received a quite timely response that said their intent is to "[keep] 
this version roughly in sync with the latest GNAT Pro releases" and "in 
fact the latest GPL edition is more recent than the latest GNAT Pro 
official release, it corresponds to the more recent GNAT Pro Ada 2005 Beta".

Maybe Ludovic should rerun his Debian survey?  Declining to include a 
maintained Ada development environment on a Linux distribution may be 
unwise...

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Ludovic Brenta]

Marc A. Criley a écrit :

> (Hmm, this subject seems to have sputtered out, better get some
> gasoline... :-)
>
> I wrote to AdaCore to ask them what their maintenance and upgrade
> intentions were for the GNAT GPL Edition.
>
> I received a quite timely response that said their intent is to "[keep]
> this version roughly in sync with the latest GNAT Pro releases" and "in
> fact the latest GPL edition is more recent than the latest GNAT Pro
> official release, it corresponds to the more recent GNAT Pro Ada 2005 Beta".
>
> Maybe Ludovic should rerun his Debian survey?  Declining to include a
> maintained Ada development environment on a Linux distribution may be
> unwise...

I warned against this on several occasions, and urged respondents to
the survey to take all aspects into consideration.  I also said that
no matter what, GCC in Debian will never be as good as the GNAT GPL
Edition.  Also, packaging GNAT GPL 2005 Edition was my first intention
(per the Debian Ada Policy, which I'm in the process of updating).
This apparently has had little or no effect on the results.

OTOH, I wouldn't want to spend my time on packages that nobody uses.
Also, while the "selfish argument" has no effect on my decision[1],
I am sensitive to the "interoperability argument", which pleads in
favour of GCC.

As a heads-up: I have not yet started the transition, so it is still
time, if you wish, to cast more votes which perhaps will change the
outcome.  My plan is to wait for a month or so.  The gcc_4_1_branch
is due to be created in the coming days or weeks on gcc.gnu.org; I
feel confident that the corresponding Debian package will appear
soon thereafter in unstable or in experimental.  I will start the
transition when this happens.

[1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument",
the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach
selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take,
as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[michael bode]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument",
> the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach
> selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take,
> as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.

Probably you will just teach selfish people to avoid Ada if they want
to program closed source software.

The whole debate would be completly pointless if there was a $$$ "GNAT
Standard Edition" with GMGPL and without $$$$$ support contracts.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
> [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument",
> the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach
> selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take,
> as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.
> 
Not a formal vote, but...

I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. 
As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do 
anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have 
received". Anything, including proprietary software.

The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a marketing 
and a popularity point of view. If the community clearly refuses this 
edition (and not having it in Debian is quite a strong indication), 
maybe AdaCore will revise its policy.

Moreover, I find it quite logical for Debian to just use the standard 
GCC tree.

The whole issue is about packaging, not the compiler. I even think that 
it would be OK to take the GPL edition, replace the offending packages 
from the version in the GCC tree, and release the whole stuff under 
GMGPL. But then, someone has to do the packaging...
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Ludovic Brenta]

Jean-Pierre Rosen a écrit :

> Ludovic Brenta a écrit :
> > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument",
> > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach
> > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take,
> > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.
> >
> Not a formal vote, but...
>
> I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software.
> As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do
> anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have
> received". Anything, including proprietary software.

Precisely.  With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the
source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this
same right.  The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you
cannot deny others this right anymore.  This is the "free" spirit as
defined by Stallman and the FSF.  The BSD license does allow you to
deny rights to others, and has a different definition of "free".

> The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a marketing
> and a popularity point of view. If the community clearly refuses this
> edition (and not having it in Debian is quite a strong indication),
> maybe AdaCore will revise its policy.

Yes, this is a possibility.

> Moreover, I find it quite logical for Debian to just use the standard
> GCC tree.

Well, latest /= greatest, that's why I kept gnat 3.15p in Debian for so
long instead of moving to GCC.  Also, GCC is not "standard" by any
measure (Ada is not a release criterion for GCC).  In contrast, GNAT
GPL
is "standard" by two measures: it has been blessed by AdaCore, and is
known to build ASIS, GLADE, GPS etc. correctly.

> The whole issue is about packaging, not the compiler. I even think that
> it would be OK to take the GPL edition, replace the offending packages
> from the version in the GCC tree, and release the whole stuff under
> GMGPL. But then, someone has to do the packaging...

I contemplated this idea, but when I saw the size of the diff, I backed
out.  I did "diff -I^-- gcc/gcc/ada gnat-gpl-2005-src/src/ada" (note:
ignoring comments and therefore the change of license) and found:

GCC 3.4.4 to GPL: 16.0 megabytes
GCC 4.0.1 to GPL: 11.0 megabytes
GCC HEAD  to GPL:  7.1 megabytes

Even with 4.1, the difference is huge.  And note that this is only the
Ada part of GCC.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Marc A. Criley]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Marc A. Criley a �crit :
> 
>>Maybe Ludovic should rerun his Debian survey?  Declining to include a
>>maintained Ada development environment on a Linux distribution may be
>>unwise...
> 
> I warned against this on several occasions, and urged respondents to
> the survey to take all aspects into consideration.  I also said that
> no matter what, GCC in Debian will never be as good as the GNAT GPL
> Edition.  Also, packaging GNAT GPL 2005 Edition was my first intention
> (per the Debian Ada Policy, which I'm in the process of updating).
> This apparently has had little or no effect on the results.

Oh, what the hell, I'd reverse my vote given the chance.  2 pts for GNAT 
GPL Edition, no second choice, and no negatives.

Marc

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
> Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit :
>>I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software.
>>As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do
>>anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have
>>received". Anything, including proprietary software.
> 
> 
> Precisely.  With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the
> source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this
> same right.  The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you
> cannot deny others this right anymore.  

Not exactly. With the GMGPL, you certainly cannot prevent anyone from 
seeing the source code  of the GNAT run-time; you are just not required 
to provide it.

In the case of a compiler, it really does not make sense to restrict 
what the compiler can be used for. Do you imagine distributing GIMP with 
a notice saying that if you distribute any image produced with it, it 
must be exempt of rights? This would certainly be perceived as a 
restriction on freedom!
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Ludovic Brenta]

Jean-Pierre Rosen a écrit :

> Ludovic Brenta a écrit :
> > Jean-Pierre Rosen a écrit :
> >>I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software.
> >>As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do
> >>anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have
> >>received". Anything, including proprietary software.
> >
> >
> > Precisely.  With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the
> > source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this
> > same right.  The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you
> > cannot deny others this right anymore.
>
> Not exactly. With the GMGPL, you certainly cannot prevent anyone from
> seeing the source code  of the GNAT run-time; you are just not required
> to provide it.

But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your
program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications.  Thus, you
can make a closed-source version of the run-time.

> In the case of a compiler, it really does not make sense to restrict
> what the compiler can be used for. Do you imagine distributing GIMP with
> a notice saying that if you distribute any image produced with it, it
> must be exempt of rights? This would certainly be perceived as a
> restriction on freedom!

Run-time library /= compiler.  You yourself pointed that out today in
a previous post.  Therefore, your comparison with GIMP is incorrect,
because GIMP does not include any "run-time library" into images.

If you want independence from the run-time library and its license,
you know what to do: pragma No_Run_Time.

But this has been explained many times over already, here and in
countless other places where a library is placed under the GPL (e.g.
the Qt library, or the MySQL client library[1]).  There seems to be a
widespread perception that all libraries, especially ones that come
with a compiler, must always allow writing proprietary software with
them.  This is not true: the authors of the library alone decide on
that.

You may object that "the GNAT run-time library is part of the Ada
standard"; it is not.  It is an implementation of the Ada standard,
and as all implementations of any standard, it has its own license.

I agree with you that this may have been a bad move, from a marketing
perspective, both for AdaCore and for Ada in general (this is the
"marketing argument").

[1] See myth #6 in
http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/dispelling-the-myths.html
I think it would be nice if AdaCore granted a FLOSS exception similar
to MySQL's, thus addressing the "other free software argument" which
concerns me quite a lot.

[2] I've summarised all arguments earlier on this group; for reference
see
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/24ac770ebf312b7a/586cefe12b7f4066?hl=fr#586cefe12b7f4066

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit :
> 
> 
>> Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
>> 
>>> [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish 
>>> argument", the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, 
>>> just to teach selfish people that if they refuse to give, then 
>>> they cannot take, as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.
>>> 
>> 
>> Not a formal vote, but...
>> 
>> I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free 
>> software. As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is
>>  "you can do anything with this software, *except* deny to others 
>> the rights you have received". Anything, including proprietary 
>> software.
> 
> 
> Precisely.  With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify 
> the source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others 
> this same right.  The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with 
> it you cannot deny others this right anymore.  This is the "free" 
> spirit as defined by Stallman and the FSF.  The BSD license does 
> allow you to deny rights to others, and has a different definition of
>  "free".
> 
> 
>> The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a 
>> marketing and a popularity point of view. If the community clearly 
>> refuses this edition (and not having it in Debian is quite a strong
>> indication), maybe AdaCore will revise its policy.
> 
> 
> Yes, this is a possibility.
> 
> 
>> Moreover, I find it quite logical for Debian to just use the 
>> standard GCC tree.
> 
> 
> Well, latest /= greatest, that's why I kept gnat 3.15p in Debian for 
> so long instead of moving to GCC.  Also, GCC is not "standard" by any
> measure (Ada is not a release criterion for GCC).

Indeed I think this is an important point. I don't use myself gcc-gnat
but follow the gcc developers list for Ada related news. My (admitely
perhaps innacurate) impression is that gcc-ada is in a state of great
flow and sometimes brokeness that make it not that desirable as a free
compiler at the moment. (it's known that one of the 3.3/3.4 versions was
strongly not recommended --perhaps directly broken--, but I'm not sure
which one of the two, and this was (IIRC) as a result of Ada not being a
release criterion for gcc).

> In contrast, GNAT GPL is "standard" by two measures: it has been 
> blessed by AdaCore, and is known to build ASIS, GLADE, GPS etc. 
> correctly.

And so, as a hobbyist GPL developer, I will cast my late vote for the
GPL version ;) followed by the latest gcc one.

We must consider, and this I think is related with the vote to "wait"
used by something else, that these gnat versions at the moment are
changing to include the 2005 features. By experience I can say that if
you use them [the features], you're going to see a lot more ICEs than
when doing regular Ada 95 programming. That is, there must still pass
quite some time until gnat become "stable" and the only changes are 
ironing out of rare bugs. (Is even the 0Y standard closed for that matter?)

That's a reason not to include a version who's not actively receiving
the changes (gcc.3.4? gcc.4.0?) if we're interested in a 0Y compiler
instead of a 95 one. In any case, I'm afraid that any of these versions
may require a lot of work for maintenance and patching.

Ideally, I think we should aim to have the GPL edition and a GMGPL one,
but I understand that it is a) more work and b) still more work to
maintain the gcc one who's under heavy changing.

Indeed I'm worried that the most work-effective stance, apart from the
GPL edition who has all the toolkit ready, is to wait to see if a better
replacement for 3.15p (and maybe the GPL) arises in the gcc branch in
the future.

In short, if I were Ludovic and were faced with a maintenance task, I'd 
leave 3.15p as it is, as the Ada95 choice; the GPL version as 
experimental 0Y with full toolkits, and would aim to replace it in the 
future with the GMGPL gcc one when it starts to settle and the 0Y 
feature set is complete.

>> The whole issue is about packaging, not the compiler. I even think 
>> that it would be OK to take the GPL edition, replace the offending 
>> packages from the version in the GCC tree, and release the whole 
>> stuff under GMGPL. But then, someone has to do the packaging...
> 
> 
> I contemplated this idea, but when I saw the size of the diff, I 
> backed out.  I did "diff -I^-- gcc/gcc/ada gnat-gpl-2005-src/src/ada"
>  (note: ignoring comments and therefore the change of license) and 
> found:
> 
> GCC 3.4.4 to GPL: 16.0 megabytes GCC 4.0.1 to GPL: 11.0 megabytes GCC
>  HEAD  to GPL:  7.1 megabytes
> 
> Even with 4.1, the difference is huge.  And note that this is only 
> the Ada part of GCC.
> 

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Ludovic Brenta]

> [2] I've summarised all arguments earlier on this group; for reference
> see
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/24ac770ebf312b7a/586cefe12b7f4066?hl=fr#586cefe12b7f4066

Better URL:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/8d1b6d93ee815f87

> -- 
> Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Ludovic Brenta]

Alex R. Mosteo a écrit :
[interesting stuff deleted]

> In short, if I were Ludovic and were faced with a maintenance task, I'd
> leave 3.15p as it is, as the Ada95 choice; the GPL version as
> experimental 0Y with full toolkits, and would aim to replace it in the
> future with the GMGPL gcc one when it starts to settle and the 0Y
> feature set is complete.

I'm actually planning to do something close to that.  Debian Sarge
is the current stable version, and its default Ada compiler is gnat
3.15p. Sarge will remain the current stable version until around
December 2006, when Etch is released (the date is tentative: as always,
Etch will be released "when it is ready").

I think we will probably end up with GCC 4.1 as the default Ada
compiler in Etch.  GCC 4.1 may not be perfect WRT Ada 2006, but it will
support Ada 95 on more hardware platforms than does GNAT 3.15p; this is
a big plus.  Also, GCC 4.1 is likely to become the default compiler
for C and C++ as well, meaning that it will receive good support
on many targets.

I suppose (but this is outside of my control) that GCC 4.1 will first
appear in the "experimental" distribution of Debian, which is just
designed for such purposes.  For those who don't know how Debian works,
"experimental" contains a small number of packages that must be
installed on top of Sid (unstable).  Packages do not migrate from
experimental to Sid automatically, but only at their maintainer's
explicit request.

Currently, I'm waiting to see how things turn out upstream (i.e. on
gcc.gnu.org).  I also scan the gcc and gcc-patches lists for Ada-
related things.  I will announce the beginning of the transition on
this forum.

As I have said before, I don't have enough manpower to handle both
GNAT GPL and GCC; it is one or the other.  The vote that took place
earlier means that I will go for GCC and ignore GNAT GPL completely.
Unless, of course, there is a landslide of votes in the opposite
direction, but this seems unlikely.  (I've counted your vote and
Marc's).

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
> But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your
> program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications.  Thus, you
> can make a closed-source version of the run-time.
I don't think so, GMGPL is not BSD (but IANAL). What the GMGPL allows is 
using the RTL without making your program fall under the GPL. On all 
other aspects, it is GPL.

> Run-time library /= compiler.  You yourself pointed that out today in
> a previous post.  Therefore, your comparison with GIMP is incorrect,
> because GIMP does not include any "run-time library" into images.
I know the comparison is not perfect, but what I mean is that the goal 
of a compiler (in the wide sense, including the library) is to produce 
programs. The fact that it does so by using a library rather that 
generating code in-line is an implementation detail. This is just an 
analogy.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Poul-Erik Andreasen]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit :
> 
> 
>>Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
>>
>>>Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit :
>>>
>>>>I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software.
>>>>As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do
>>>>anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have
>>>>received". Anything, including proprietary software.
>>>
>>>
>>>Precisely.  With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the
>>>source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this
>>>same right.  The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you
>>>cannot deny others this right anymore.
>>
>>Not exactly. With the GMGPL, you certainly cannot prevent anyone from
>>seeing the source code  of the GNAT run-time; you are just not required
>>to provide it.
> 
> 
> But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your
> program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications.  Thus, you
> can make a closed-source version of the run-time.
> 

Thats wrong GMGPL dos not allow you to do that. You are even not allowed 
to modify the runtime and publicise it under GMGPL, and then use that 
libery for linking into your code. There are no inheretence in GMGPL.
Any modifications in GMGPL-code will return in GPL licenced code.

Poul-Erik Andreasen

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> 
> [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument",
> the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach
> selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take,
> as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.

Much of what I release publicly is under the GMGPL. This gives the recipient 
greater freedom than the GPL. They can take parts of my application and include 
it in their work, and release it under any license they choose. But I guess I'm 
just selfish and deserve what I get.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"We'll make Rock Ridge think it's a chicken
that got caught in a tractor's nuts!"
Blazing Saddles
87

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:

> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument",
>> the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach
>> selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take,
>> as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.
>
> Much of what I release publicly is under the GMGPL. This gives the
> recipient greater freedom than the GPL. They can take parts of my
> application and include it in their work, and release it under any
> license they choose. But I guess I'm just selfish and deserve what I
> get.

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.  Of course you are not
selfish; you are being super-unselfish, by allowing people to take
your work while at the same time keeping their own work secret.  The
"selfish argument" was raised here by people who would like to do that
with the GNAT library.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:06:17 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Run-time library /= compiler.  You yourself pointed that out today in
> a previous post.  Therefore, your comparison with GIMP is incorrect,
> because GIMP does not include any "run-time library" into images.

although a multi-colour gradient fill you make with GIMP *is* a
creative work under copyright law, and the output generated would
reasonably be covered as a derived work.  And I would guess an
aesthetically pleasing filter kernel built into GIMP would be
treated similarly.  And creative special-effects built in too.

Fonts you would expect also to be covered, if they were build in to the
GIMP, but these are normally separate, but the copyright on fonts
is rather limited, if I remember correctly.

I agree with Jean-Pierre's analogy.
-- 
Adrian

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Björn Persson]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you
> cannot deny others this right anymore.  This is the "free" spirit as
> defined by Stallman and the FSF.  The BSD license does allow you to
> deny rights to others, and has a different definition of "free".

You do know that the FSF considers the new BSD license free, don't you?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[David Trudgett]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit :
>
>> Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
>> > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument",
>> > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach
>> > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take,
>> > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely.
>> >
>> Not a formal vote, but...
>>
>> I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software.
>> As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do
>> anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have
>> received". Anything, including proprietary software.

Jean-Pierre is quite correct in this, and in his later (in other post)
analogy with the Gimp. 

Free Software is, in fact, antithetical to software copyrights, point
blank, no qualifications needed, since that is the only thing that
makes "proprietary software" proprietary (internal software, aka trade
secrets, do not enter into this). Thus, the FSF's use of copyright to
fight copyright is ironic, if not hypocritical. (Probably the only
thing saving it from *total* hypocrisy would be apparent if one were
to suppose that the only reason "copyleft" is effective is because
*other* people believe in copyright. However, that supposition would
be ruled out the first time the FSF were to defend the GPL in a court
of -violence- I mean law. I don't personally know if the FSF has ever
prosecuted anyone over the GPL, but the consequences are obvious if
they have.)


>
> Precisely.  With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the
> source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this
> same right.  

This is just ingenuous, Ludovic. That means you are verging on
dishonesty, but perhaps you wrote it at three in the morning. You know
very well that (a) no one can be denied the right to see and modify
the source code of the GNAT run-time, which flatly contradicts what
you said; and (b) if one is going to deny the source of one's whole
program, then denying them also one's (hypothetical) mods to the
run-time is *totally* and *utterly* (did I emphasise that enough?)
irrelevant. You also must further know that very few *if anyone* would
be interested in making significant modifications to the run-time
while *keeping them secret*, because *no benefit* would accrue to the
proprietary software developer, but in fact precisely the opposite,
because those "secret" modificiatons will have to be done over and
over again for each new compiler/run-time[*] release.

    [*] Notice I say compiler/run-time. The distinction between
        compiler and run-time is artificial.

Furthermore, (but the usual IANAL applies) it is far from clear
whether one is even legally *allowed* to make modifications to the
GNAT run-time and then distribute in binary-only form. Whether that is
so or not, it would certainly seem to be against the spirit of the
licence, if not the letter, to produce such binary distributions. The
GMGPL simply "allows" one to link one's proprietary code; it does not
give open slather on the GMGPL'ed code itself (the run-time).

All of this you must know, yet you have apparently either made an
inexplicable [**] mistake, or you chose to misrepresent the case, or
you are not being intellectually honest even with yourself.

    [**] We all make mistakes, but inexplicable ones happen less
         often. Yours seems inexplicable because one supposes that you
         have given the subject serious thought and are not just
         writing the first thing that pops into your mind.


> The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you
> cannot deny others this right anymore.  

As noted above, this is an entirely bogus claim.


> This is the "free" spirit as defined by Stallman and the FSF.  The
> BSD license does allow you to deny rights to others, and has a
> different definition of "free".

You're in error here. Stallman counts the BSD licence as being free,
just not "copyleft":

    Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses, or some other
    permissive non-copyleft license, is not doing wrong; the program
    is still free software, and still a contribution to our
    community. But it is weak, and in most cases it is not the best
    way to promote users' freedom to share and change software.

        -- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html


But why does RMS think that BSD is weak? Here is the answer:

    Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny
    freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to
    defend their freedom.

        -- ibid.

In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the
violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their
freedom of action, for what other meaning can, "you let him do it,"
and, "failing to defend their freedom," have?

RMS makes a fundamental mistake here. Refusing to use violence is not
equivalent to letting someone do something. It is simply acknowledging
that violence is not a legitimate means to stop someone from doing
something. Just ask yourself a simple question, "Would Jesus see a
lawyer to have someone thrown into jail for violating his
'copyright'?" All good people who know anything about Jesus know the
answer to that question in their hearts. It's something for anyone
calling himself or herself a Christian to think about. Other people
are free to ignore it, if they wish...

Note that none of this is defending proprietary software distribution
(but I have no problem with internal or "trade secret" software). It
is pointing out that proprietary software (distributed) is wrong for
the same reason that copylefted software (if taken seriously) is
wrong: it employs violence or the threat of violence against people.

The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies
freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny
freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this? It's
either hypocrisy or ingenuousness (in the case that copyright law is
being used in bad faith, i.e., while not believing in it).

Richard Stallman says that the only freedom denied by the GPL is the
freedom to deny other people freedom. This is just not true. For a
start, it denies the freedom to choose one's own Free Software
licensing terms, and to incorporate other software licensed under
different Free terms. As we have seen with the GNAT GPL, it can also
deny people the right to license their own software any way they wish,
which may even include restrictive, unfree terms. The fact that we may
believe it is wrong [***] to impose such terms, does not make it
legitimate for us to use violence (something which is also wrong) in
order to have our way over the will of another person. It is doubly
wrong in that we are *not* gods who can know all about everyone and
every possible situation and therefore be in a position to sit in
judgement. [****]

    [***] Note that I do not say 'immoral'. Immorality consists not
          only in doing something wrong, but also in knowing that what
          one is doing is wrong.

    [****] It may be of interest to Christians, that Christ, according
           to conventional Christian doctrine, was in precisely this
           position, yet even he refused to judge.


>
>> The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a marketing
>> and a popularity point of view. 

True. One does not win friends by bludgeoning them, but by treating
them with respect. Contempt for freedom in the name of freedom is
especially obnoxious... especially since we know that ACT is not in the
business of promoting freedom, but of making a profit. That is the
corporate imperative, after all.


David


-- 

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

In ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed, but
in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the Neros,
are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them.

One set of people have suggested, another set have proposed, a third
have reported, a fourth have decided, a fifth have confirmed, a sixth
have given the order, and a seventh set of men have carried it out.
They hang, they flog to death women, old men, and innocent people, as
was done recently among us in Russia at the Yuzovsky factory, and is
always being done everywhere in Europe and America in the struggle
with the anarchists and all other rebels against the existing order;
they shoot and hang men by hundreds and thousands, or massacre
millions in war, or break men's hearts in solitary confinement, and
ruin their souls in the corruption of a soldier's life, and no one is
responsible.

    -- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[David Trudgett]

David Trudgett <wpower@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:

> This is just ingenuous, Ludovic. 

The word my feeble mind was trying to think of was 'disingenuous', of
course.

Cheers,

David



-- 

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave
social ill, it seems to me that this is just as it should be. Why
should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating
farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the
power?

    -- Dmitry Orlov

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

David Trudgett wrote:

> But why does RMS think that BSD is weak? Here is the answer:
> 
>     Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny
>     freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to
>     defend their freedom.
> 
>         -- ibid.
> 
> In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the
> violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their
> freedom of action, for what other meaning can, "you let him do it,"
> and, "failing to defend their freedom," have?

Yes, and forceful protection of this or that freedom is not unusual.
Hypocrisy only arrises when you fix the definition of freedom
to be universal, close to the halting problem, and inapplicable
in the real world:
Many people will ask the police for violence when
a robber is threatening a hostage. When there appears to be no
other way to free the hostage, shoot the robber when you can make sure 
you won't kill the hostage. In other words, use violence of the
law to stamp on the robbers (perceived) freedom of action, on behalf
of both the hostage, and society as represented by its legal rules.
There are two instances of freedom here.

(If you think the robber doesn't have this freedom of action,
just think of a less simplisitc situation that is less clear.
Motives such as hunger, culture based assumptions in a
country where people have different cultural backgrounds,
in-group jurisdiction in areas where there is no police,
but where, formally, the rules of a country would apply, etc.)

Yet shooting kidnappers doesn't mean that common sense says, shoot
when you think you are free to do so. Rob when you think robbing
is your freedom of action.
I read that Florida legislation has spured a discussion on the
degree of the freedom to use a gun early in the process.



> The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies
> freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny
> freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this?

Freedoms, as you have written, is plural.
This or that freedom is just an overloading issue with "freedom".
If you have a way to draw meaning from some absolute freedom,
then, oK, there is nothing to argue about. The FSF says which
freedoms they prefer, and why.

I can't think that some absolute freedom exist on this planet as
can be seen by looking at what you are free to do in this country
or that country. Or by considering what nature forces
you to do (you can't say, "I'm free not to eat", and "I'm free to
live on", at the same time. Won't work.)

As you mentioned, there are different definitions of "free".
Do they matter when it comes to the legal content of the GPL?

-- Georg 

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Hyman Rosen]

David Trudgett wrote:
> Free Software is, in fact, antithetical to software copyrights...
 > Thus, the FSF's use of copyright to fight copyright is ironic,
 > if not hypocritical.

Ironic only. The purpose of the FSF is to promote free software.
The means by which it does so is irrelevant to its purpose. It
has simply found something effective to use in a climate where
software copyright exists. The FSF cannot change laws, so it must
work within them.

> In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the
> violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their
> freedom of action

Yes, precisely, because "freedom of action" is not something he or
the FSF values. The "four freedoms" that they do value have been
repeated often. Stallman and the FSF advocate that software should
be licensed (when lack of a license would inhibit the four freedoms)
such that the four freedoms are maintained for everyone. Permitting
someone "freedom of action" would serve to allow him to deny others
the four freedoms, and therefore this is to be discouraged.

> RMS makes a fundamental mistake here. Refusing to use violence is not
> equivalent to letting someone do something. It is simply acknowledging
> that violence is not a legitimate means to stop someone from doing
> something.

Violence is a completely legitimate means to stop someone from doing
something. It is used everywhere for this purpose, and it will continue
to be used evereywhere for this purpose. You must learn to recognize
the difference between "I do not like this" and "This is not legitimate"
or you will simply appear ridiculous. Most people have a large number of
interests that they support through "violence" (laws, courts, police,
aremd forces, personal weapons) and they would laugh at you if you tried
to tell them that these should be abolished because "violence" is wrong.

> The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies
> freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny
> freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this?

It's not at all difficult, when the position is explained correctly.
You conflate the freedom that proprietary software denies with the
freedom that the FSF/GPL denies. But those freedoms are not the same,
and the FSF values one while it despises the other. The FSF is not
interested in software developers. It doesn't care to make their lives
easier, it doesn't care to make their jobs easier, and it doesn't care
to make them wealthier. The FSF cares that people should be able to use
programs, read them, change them, and redistribute them. It will use
any available tool to guarantee these freedoms to all users. The fact
that the same law underpins proprietary software and GPLed software is
a small irony, no more than that.

> Richard Stallman says that the only freedom denied by the GPL is the
> freedom to deny other people freedom. This is just not true. For a
> start, it denies the freedom to choose one's own Free Software
> licensing terms, and to incorporate other software licensed under
> different Free terms.

Many software projects which want to be "more free" than the GPL just
allow for dual-licensing. Then people can redistribute their code as
part of GPLed works and as part of works licensed in other ways. For
example, you can find BSD-licensed code mixed into GPLed code. The
only reason not to allow code to be released under the GPL is because
you want to restrict some of the freedoms the GPL demands, and then
RMS will hold no truck with you.

> As we have seen with the GNAT GPL, it can also deny people the right
 > to license their own software any way they wish

It's not entirely their own software. It has other people's software
mixed into it, and the law gives them a say over the entire work. And
yes, those people are willing to use violence to enforce that say.

> True. One does not win friends by bludgeoning them, but by treating
> them with respect.

Why do you think that ACT is trying to win friends? And I think ACT is
perfectly willing to do without "friends" who whine that freely-given
gifts are insufficiently generous.

> Contempt for freedom in the name of freedom is especially obnoxious
 > especially since we know that ACT is not in the business of promoting
 > freedom, but of making a profit.

It is the most hypocritical of all to whine that a company is preventing
you from doing exactly what you would prevent others from doing. It is
hypocritical to seek to profit from the labor of others without paying
them, and to whine that they aren't letting you do that.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.  Of course you are not
> selfish; you are being super-unselfish, by allowing people to take
> your work while at the same time keeping their own work secret.  The
> "selfish argument" was raised here by people who would like to do that
> with the GNAT library.

But if I create an application using my GMGPL code and the GNAT GPL compiler, my 
program (and all of its source code) must become GPL, and I am not allowed to be 
"super-unselfish". Thus, I find the GNAT GPL compiler unsuitable for my 
purposes. I consider it inappropriate for any compiler to take such choices from 
me, and for any OS to supply such a compiler.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I soiled my armor, I was so scared."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
71

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Hyman Rosen]

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> But if I create an application using my GMGPL code
> and the GNAT GPL compiler, my program (and all of
> its source code) must become GPL, and I am not allowed
> to be "super-unselfish".

That's not true. When you distribute your sources along
with your binary, there is nothing stopping you from adding
that special exemption to the license for your own code.
Then the people to whom you have distributed can build an
executable using your code and distribute it to others
without giving them the source to your code, just as you
would like them to be able to do. It just means that they
can't do it using the GNAT GPL compiler.

> Thus, I find the GNAT GPL compiler unsuitable for my
> purposes. I consider it inappropriate for any compiler
> to take such choices from me, and for any OS to supply
> such a compiler.

It's unsuitable for people who want to build programs not
bound by the GPL. But it's fine if they want to build such
programs and grant additional exemptions on their own code.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Simon Wright]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:

> But if I create an application using my GMGPL code and the GNAT GPL
> compiler, my program (and all of its source code) must become GPL, and
> I am not allowed to be "super-unselfish". Thus, I find the GNAT GPL
> compiler unsuitable for my purposes. I consider it inappropriate for
> any compiler to take such choices from me, and for any OS to supply
> such a compiler.

I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable
affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you
would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was
and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds
rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a
different compiler; where's the problem?

The GPL hasn't been tested, has it, but it does say (in Section 2)

    "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
    contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
    intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
    derivative or collective works based on the Program."

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Simon Wright wrote:

> I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable
> affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you
> would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was
> and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds
> rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a
> different compiler; where's the problem?

The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under 
the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the 
run-time library is GPL.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle,
do you understand? Even--and I want to make this
absolutely clear--even if they do say, 'Jehovah.'"
Monty Python's Life of Brian
74

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Simon Wright]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:

> Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable
>> affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you
>> would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was
>> and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds
>> rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a
>> different compiler; where's the problem?
>
> The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way
> falls under the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any
> program that uses the run-time library is GPL.

No, it is not GPL, it must be released under the terms of the GPL. I
suppose there might be an argument that a person who distributes a
binary that mixes GPL code and the Booch Components (which are GMGPL)
would have to make available the BC sources under GPL terms, but the
recipient could always come back to me and ask for a fresh copy under
GMGPL. Or indeed any other terms (they would fail, probably, because
it's not just my copyright in there, the other authors would have to
agree too). I just think this is all FUD.

From the Libre site --

Q I would like to release my software under the XYZ license, which is
a Free Software license according to the FSF, but is incompatible with
the GPL. What should I do?

A The GNAT GPL Edition doesn't limit in any way the license you use on
your sources. If you are distributing sources only, no issue with
respect to the license of GNAT GPL Edition arises. You or anyone who
wants to build a binary can do so freely from these sources, using
either the GNAT GPL compiler or any other suitable Ada compiler.  If
you want to *distribute* a binary of your program compiled with the
compiler in the GNAT GPL Edition then *today* the binary must be
licensed under the GPL. Note that you can still license a copy of your
sources under the XYZ Free Software license of your choosing.  It is
AdaCore's intention to work with the FSF to modify the licensing of
the GNAT GPL Edition to allow the use of other Free Software licenses
for binaries produced with the compiler inside the GNAT GPL
Edition. Meanwhile, you can distribute in source form only.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Simon Clubley]

In article <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:
> Simon Wright wrote:
> 
>> I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable
>> affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you
>> would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was
>> and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds
>> rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a
>> different compiler; where's the problem?
> 
> The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under 
> the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the 
> run-time library is GPL.
> 

Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source
and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people
_within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just
created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada.

The following is something that Richard Stallman wrote a few weeks ago on
the Theora mailing list. (Theora is an open source video codec)

             ------------------------------------------
|>    Is how much a piece of code will be used the important factor in the 
|>    decision? Do we just want to create code which is as widely used as 
|>    possible, or do we want to write code which guarantees certain freedoms 
|>    to the user.
|
|Which of these goals is most important depends on the detalis
|of the situation.  In most cases, I think the latter is more
|important.  If someone doesn't use the program, we say
|"That's your loss."
|
|The Ogg codecs are an exception because we are also in a battle to
|convince people to switch away from formats that free software can't
|handle.  It is very important to us for non-free apps to support
|Ogg/Vorbis and Ogg/Theora.
             ------------------------------------------

Note the last paragraph. I think that Ada is pretty much in the same
situation as Theora, in that we want people to adopt it instead of other
currently more popular alternatives and that the overriding requirement
should be to keep the barrier to using Ada as low as possible.

If ACT have confused members within the Ada community, consider what the
effect will have been on potential new Ada users, who will now probably
just see the new barrier that they cannot do that same things with the
GCC Ada compiler that they can with the GCC C++ compiler.

Simon.

PS: Yes, I know that the code in the FSF GCC codebase is currently GMGPL.
How many potential new users do you think will get far enough along to
discover that, and of those who do, how many will wonder if this codebase
will now change to pure GPL as well ?

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       
Microsoft: The Standard Oil Company of the 21st century

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Simon Clubley wrote:

> Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source
> and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people
> _within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just
> created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada.

Not speaking on AdaCore's behalf, I think the only persons who have
created confusion in the Ada community are those who manage to make
people think that there is now only one GNAT, and that it can be used
in GPL projects only. And that this must somehow introduce the decline
of Ada.

The comments sound like free riders' moaning in almost all cases.
(Exceptional cases have been presented in GNAT GPL threads, and it seems
that the new paragraph on compatible free licenses at the libre site
is a reaction to corresponding inquiries from the Ada community (I guess).)

It might be a disservice to Ada to continue lament and speculation, in the
presence of a comparatively rich set of compiler alternatives, including
free ones of highest quality.


> PS: Yes, I know that the code in the FSF GCC codebase is currently GMGPL.
> How many potential new users do you think will get far enough along to
> discover that,

All users of GNU/Linux distributions for example might see the system Ada
compiler first, i.e. the FSF GNAT. And only later, if at all,
will they discover the GNAT GPL Edition.

If someone wishes to use some package like AWS within a closed
source application, they can go and ask the authors for a license.

Maybe RR Software will present a very nice and affordable Ada 2005
solution on MSWindows.
Rumor has it that the compiler has very good error messages, and helpful
exception tracing.


> and of those who do, how many will wonder if this codebase
> will now change to pure GPL as well ?

I might as well ask how many will wonder if AdaCore is a healthy
company that will continue to contribute their code to GCC.
Now _this_ is spreading FUD. ;-)


-- Georg 

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeff Creem]

Simon Clubley wrote:
> In article <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:
> 
>>Simon Wright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable
>>>affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you
>>>would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was
>>>and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds
>>>rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a
>>>different compiler; where's the problem?
>>
>>The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under 
>>the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the 
>>run-time library is GPL.
>>
> 
> 
> Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source
> and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people
> _within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just
> created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada.
> 

No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers are not 
lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when licensing terms 
are brought to the forefront, they get confused and upset.

I find this to generally be true with all non-trivial license terms 
including that of most free software projects as well as proprietary 
projects.

Of course I can't argue with your core assertion since the developers 
that are now having to confront license issues are people interested in 
Ada...

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Simon Wright wrote:

> From the Libre site --
> 
> Q I would like to release my software under the XYZ license, which is
> a Free Software license according to the FSF, but is incompatible with
> the GPL. What should I do?
> 
> A The GNAT GPL Edition doesn't limit in any way the license you use on
> your sources. If you are distributing sources only, no issue with
> respect to the license of GNAT GPL Edition arises. You or anyone who
> wants to build a binary can do so freely from these sources, using
> either the GNAT GPL compiler or any other suitable Ada compiler.  If
> you want to *distribute* a binary of your program compiled with the
> compiler in the GNAT GPL Edition then *today* the binary must be
> licensed under the GPL. Note that you can still license a copy of your
> sources under the XYZ Free Software license of your choosing.  It is
> AdaCore's intention to work with the FSF to modify the licensing of
> the GNAT GPL Edition to allow the use of other Free Software licenses
> for binaries produced with the compiler inside the GNAT GPL
> Edition. Meanwhile, you can distribute in source form only.

I don't recall seeing this when I 1st perused the GNAT GPL site. Is it a recent 
addition?

If, in fact, I can release a binary compiled with GNAT GPL and still use license 
L* on my code, then the situation is not as I thought. Of course, IANAL.

*For me, L would be GMGPL, but I thought it best to use general terms here.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
66

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Björn Persson]

Simon Clubley wrote:
> I think that Ada is pretty much in the same
> situation as Theora, in that we want people to adopt it instead of other
> currently more popular alternatives and that the overriding requirement
> should be to keep the barrier to using Ada as low as possible.

My thoughts exactly!

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Simon Wright]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:

> I don't recall seeing this when I 1st perused the GNAT GPL site. Is
> it a recent addition?

I found this at https://libre2.adacore.com/dynamic/gnat_faq.html (this
is actually the GNAT GPL Edition FAQ).

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[wojtek]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> But you can modify the run-time, ship it in binary only as part of your
> program, and prevent anyone from seeing your modifications.  Thus, you
> can make a closed-source version of the run-time.

One would have to be insane to try that. This is because you need help
testing it.

We are working on a modified runtime. It's painful and slow. It is
supposed to implement all the tasks in one process, and make use of
asynchronous IO to schedule them. Similar concept to GNU Pth, SGI state
threads.

Regards,
Wojtek Narczynski

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes:

Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers
Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when
Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused
Jeff> and upset.

It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy
completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert
Dewar (6 May 1999):

"In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine
 legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x,
 possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that
 allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed
 it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an
 incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY
 this split model.
 
 One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea
 (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
 licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff),
 but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have
 heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full
 access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing
 proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate
 situation :-)"

Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff".

Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one
anymore.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Szymon Guz]

Samuel Tardieu napisał(a):
>>>>>>"Jeff" == Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
> Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers
> Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when
> Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused
> Jeff> and upset.
> 
> It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy
> completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert
> Dewar (6 May 1999):
> 
> "In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine
>  legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x,
>  possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that
>  allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed
>  it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an
>  incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY
>  this split model.
>  
>  One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea
>  (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
>  licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff),
>  but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have
>  heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full
>  access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing
>  proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate
>  situation :-)"
> 
> Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
> licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff".
> 
> Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one
> anymore.
> 
>   Sam

Another problem can be the price that ACT wants for GNAT. About a year 
ago I wrote a mail to ACT and asked about the price. The answer was that 
I cannot buy licence for one seat, I can buy for at least 5 seats. They 
offered me all others products (for about 20% of their normal price) and 
GNAT Pro for 5 seats just for about 30 000 euros. For many companies 
this is too much as they can have e.g. Delphi|Builder professional for 
1000 euros with much more components.

szymon guz

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>>"Jeff" == Jeff Creem <jcreem@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
> Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers
> Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when
> Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused
> Jeff> and upset.
> 
> It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy
> completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert
> Dewar (6 May 1999):
> 
> "In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine
>  legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x,
>  possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that
>  allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed
>  it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an
>  incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY
>  this split model.
>  
>  One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea
>  (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
>  licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff),
>  but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have
>  heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full
>  access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing
>  proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate
>  situation :-)"
> 
> Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual
> licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff".
> 
> Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one
> anymore.

Do you have any indication that AdaCore offers software under anything
but GPL or GMGPL? I don't, and I don't think you have. I think there
isn't any.

They use "the modified GPL for runtime stuff", see FSF GNAT. They have
made a new, *additional* offering by packaging tons of software for
"writing free software". They are even considering whether they can
offer terms and conditions for combining software that uses different
open source licenses. (According to the libre web site.)

What makes you think that "AdaCore changed their mind and strategy
completely?"

-- Georg 

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

Georg> Do you have any indication that AdaCore offers software under
Georg> anything but GPL or GMGPL? I don't, and I don't think you
Georg> have. I think there isn't any.

I don't think either, but this is not the point at all.

Georg> They use "the modified GPL for runtime stuff", see FSF
Georg> GNAT. They have made a new, *additional* offering by packaging
Georg> tons of software for "writing free software". They are even
Georg> considering whether they can offer terms and conditions for
Georg> combining software that uses different open source
Georg> licenses. (According to the libre web site.)

Exactly, they have made an additional offering, under a different
license, leading to the first dual license for GNAT (GPL and GMGPL)
that I know of. This is their right, but they said they chose not to
do it in the past, see below.

Georg> What makes you think that "AdaCore changed their mind and
Georg> strategy completely?"

Have you read the part I quoted? Here is a more reduced excerpt from
Robert's post: (without changing the meaning of what he said, check
the archives on Google Groups for example for the whole post)

 "it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software
  for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate
  license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary
  context [...] at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no
  such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for
  runtime stuff".

AdaCore is now doing exactly what Robert said they chose not to:
distribute GPL'ed software for price $0 [GNAT GPL] and charge people a
bundle for a separate license that allows them to use the same
software in a proprietary context [GNAT Pro] (I am paraphrasing him
here as you can easily see).

Looks like a huge change in mind and strategy to me compared to what
was said and written before.

You may think that this change is for good. But you cannot deny that
this goes against the strategy that had been developed up to GNAT 3.15p.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:

> Exactly, they [AdaCore] have made an additional offering, under a different
> license,

No, it's the same license, there is just no exception to the terms
of the very same license. And this only applies to the GNAT GPL edition.
So there are two different editions of the compiler, and only one
of these editions is for GPL use only.

> leading to the first dual license for GNAT (GPL and GMGPL)
> that I know of.

There is one license for two editions of GNAT. One license comes with
an exception, the other is without exception. The first covers
Dewar's characterisation of the licensing situation completely, I think.

I don't know whether we should diagnose a change of mind.
It's rather a correction of expectations on our side that
seems necessary. Has there been an illusion of a company that
will go on to work hard and produce ever more software, well
shaped and for free, packaged free for closed-source or non-GPL use?

And I must repeat that WRT to compiler and runtime, the licensing
situation has not changed, except that there are now two editions
of the non-commercial compiler, not just one.

>  "it is quite fine legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software
>   for price $x, possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate
>   license that allows you to use the same software in a proprietary
>   context [...] at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no
>   such dual licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for
>   runtime stuff".
> 
> AdaCore is now doing exactly what Robert said they chose not to:
> distribute GPL'ed software for price $0 [GNAT GPL] and charge people a
> bundle for a separate license that allows them to use the same
> software in a proprietary context [GNAT Pro] (I am paraphrasing him
> here as you can easily see).

They distribute GMGPL'ed software for price $0 [adding their sources
to the FSF GNAT tree]. So what you say can't be right, at least if stated
this way. People can use FSF GNAT at their own risk, just like
before.
I know of no *separate* license, just of an exception to the GPL.
When they "use the modified GPL for runtime stuff", and they still
do, they are doing exactly what Robert Dewar said. In fact, had there
been no new, additional public AdaCore package at all this year, would 
anyone speculate about a change in mind and strategy?


> Looks like a huge change in mind and strategy to me compared to what
> was said and written before.

I see no difference. In those days, GNAT wasn't readily available
as part of a GCC distribution. Now it is, and GNAT is readily available
for a number of popular OSs, under the same license as before.
Some versions of GCC are know to have a very good Ada part. Not
necessarily worse than what you get with the GNAT GPL edition.

(And is it really true that you can compare GNAT 3.15p and GNAT GPL
edition? I recall that most of the new stuff wasn't contained
in ACT editions of GNAT 3.15p.)

-- Georg 

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

Georg> No, it's the same license, there is just no exception to the
Georg> terms of the very same license.

Well, if for you the GPL and the GMGPL are the same license, I
understand why you don't agree that the situation has changed.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Steve Whalen]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy
> > completely. ...
> ...
> Do you have any indication that AdaCore offers software under anything
> but GPL or GMGPL? I don't, and I don't think you have. I think there
> isn't any.
>
> They use "the modified GPL for runtime stuff", see FSF GNAT. They have
> made a new, *additional* offering by packaging tons of software for
> "writing free software".
>
> What makes you think that "AdaCore changed their mind and strategy
> completely?"

Samuel is exactly right.  AdaCore _has_ made a fundamental change. They
are now doing exactly what they said they would _not_ do many many
times starting in 1994. If you weren't reading comp.lang.ada and
following GNAT back then, please use Google groups and go back and read
what the ACT/AdaCore people were saying back then.  They took great
pains to explain that exactly what they are now doing would be "bad".

Robert Dewar and ACT/AdaCore were downright passionate about creating
the GMGPL license and keeping the GNAT Ada compilers licensed under it
so the compilers could be used for any purpose, including for
proprietary software development.  Which lead many like myself to
passionately support AdaCore.

I don't understand your posts. You keep saying nothing has changed, but
AdaCore no longer makes public releases of the GMGPL version of the Ada
compiler (and tools). They are now doing something they never did
before. They are going out of their way to "cripple" the only "free"
version of GNAT they publish by removing the GMGPL exception language
from the source files.

The GMGPL is NOT the same as GPL. You seem to imply that they are
equivalent when they are not. If they were equivalent, the GNAT team
would not have spent time and money on lawyers to create the GMGPL.

Also, the FSF CVS repository is NOT the same as an AdaCore public
release of a GMGPL version of GNAT.  In the past, when AdaCore released
a new version up GNAT (up through 3.15p) they released an easily
installable complete Ada programming system that could be used for
proprietary software, on many platforms (Linux, Windows, Solaris,
etc.).

The FSF CVS tree is NOT equivalent because "we" have to compile usable
binaries on whichever platform we want to use the Ada compiler on, AND
we have to take it with the underlying gcc compiler platform which many
time is in an unstable state, just when the Ada compiler is stable, and
vice versa.  I can't think of a single time so far when the FSF gcc Ada
has been as "good" as any of the AdaCore public releases because of the
difficulty of getting a "stable" version of Ada in the CVS repository
at the same time the rest of gcc was "stable".

Steve

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>>"Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:
> 
> 
> Georg> No, it's the same license, there is just no exception to the
> Georg> terms of the very same license.
> 
> Well, if for you the GPL and the GMGPL are the same license, I
> understand why you don't agree that the situation has changed.

Even when you consider the GPL and the GPL with exception
two different licenses, then still GNAT's license has not
changed. There is only yet another GNAT, this time GPL'ed
without exception in addition to GMGPL'ed GNAT.

-- Georg 

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Martin Krischik]

Am 25.10.2005, 19:35 Uhr, schrieb Szymon Guz <alpha@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT>:

> Another problem can be the price that ACT wants for GNAT. About a year  
> ago I wrote a mail to ACT and asked about the price. The answer was that  
> I cannot buy licence for one seat, I can buy for at least 5 seats. They  
> offered me all others products (for about 20% of their normal price) and  
> GNAT Pro for 5 seats just for about 30 000 euros. For many companies  
> this is too much as they can have e.g. Delphi|Builder professional for  
> 1000 euros with much more components.

Indeed! The price gap between GPL and GMGPl is the real problem.  
Prohibitory programmers should expect to pay for there compiler - but not  
that much.

Martin

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Steve Whalen wrote:

> AdaCore _has_ made a fundamental change. They
> are now doing exactly what they said they would _not_ do many many
> times starting in 1994. If you weren't reading comp.lang.ada and
> following GNAT back then, please use Google groups and go back and read
> what the ACT/AdaCore people were saying back then.  They took great
> pains to explain that exactly what they are now doing would be "bad".

"One of the guarantees that we make to customers right now is
that they can use GNAT libraries without any concern about
acquiring problematic licensing conditions that would apply
to their generated programs. This is of course achieved in
our case by use of the GNAT modified GPL (GMGPL). Any license
that is at least this non-restrictive is fine with us.

"...
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies"

I can't find statements that Ada Core is/was commited to releasing
only GMGPL packages of their software.
I do remember reading that they would continue to contribute
their sources to the FSF tree.

> The GMGPL is NOT the same as GPL.

The GMGPL is a modification of the GPL, using the same licensing
text. In this sense, GMGPL is not a separate license.

> You seem to imply that they are
> equivalent when they are not.

Whether you consider GPL and GMGPL to be equivalent in effect
is a different question (and one that matters). For sure I don't
consider the exception to be meaningless. Certainly one effect of the
GMGPL exception is that you can distribute closed-source programs,
(unless you use a software component that uses some other license
with its own terms).


> Also, the FSF CVS repository is NOT the same as an AdaCore public
> release of a GMGPL version of GNAT.

Yes. In fact, the (most welcome) 
gcc version 3.4.5 20050524 (prerelease) for GNAT GPL 2005 (20050614)
has bugs that the FSF GNAT doesn't have, and vice versa.

> The FSF CVS tree is NOT equivalent because "we" have to compile usable
> binaries on whichever platform we want to use the Ada compiler on, 

You don't have to compile GNAT yourself if you are using Windows,
or GNU/Linux (or Solaris, I believe), or Mac OS X. That should cover
a number of non-embedded platforms, don't you think?
In fact, Debian/GNU Linux has an integrated set of additional libraries
for use with GNAT.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Hyman Rosen]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
> "One of the guarantees that we make to customers

Notice that AdaCore made this commitment to their customers,
not to the general public. Another point against those who
feel wronged by the GPL-only release.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Szymon Guz]

Hyman Rosen napisał(a):
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>>Steve Whalen wrote:
>>"One of the guarantees that we make to customers
> 
> 
> Notice that AdaCore made this commitment to their customers,
> not to the general public. Another point against those who
> feel wronged by the GPL-only release.
> 

well, so in fact we have no freeware Ada compilers for proprietary 
software, no really good and extendible window library, so the 
popularity of Ada will never grow up, I think, but maybe I'm wrong.

szymon guz

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Pascal Obry]

Szymon,

> well, so in fact we have no freeware Ada compilers for proprietary
> software, 

That's plain wrong. We are not going to start again this thread, right?

> no really good and extendible window library, so the

You to start one.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Szymon Guz wrote:
> Hyman Rosen napisał(a):
> 
>> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Whalen wrote:
>>> "One of the guarantees that we make to customers
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice that AdaCore made this commitment to their customers,
>> not to the general public. Another point against those who
>> feel wronged by the GPL-only release.
>>
> 
> well, so in fact we have no freeware Ada compilers for proprietary 
> software, no really good and extendible window library, so the 
> popularity of Ada will never grow up, I think, but maybe I'm wrong.

You are wrong in that
- we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception
- good and extendible window libraries (CLAW, GWindows,..., GtkAda releases)

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Georg Bauhaus a �crit :
> - we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception
That's exactly why I think ACT made a very bad move.

If you  are a 5 persons company (the ones most hit by the current 
decision), you generally have more time than money (those people don't 
count their hours ;-). You can spend some time building the Gnat you 
need from the FSF tree *if you are already an Adaddict*.

If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks 
like, you want a ready-to-run distribution. You download Gnat from ACT's 
site (with some suspiscion: why do these guys require me to fill a 
form), and then you discover that you are forced to use it for free 
software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, Ada is just for those dreamers 
of the FSF, nothing like an industrial language". Of course, these 
people do not make the difference between Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro.

Conclusion: it is a real disservice for the promotion of Ada that will 
not bring one single extra customer to AdaCore.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Szymon Guz]

Jean-Pierre Rosen napisał(a):
> Georg Bauhaus a écrit :
> 
>> - we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception
> 
> That's exactly why I think ACT made a very bad move.
> 
> If you  are a 5 persons company (the ones most hit by the current 
> decision), you generally have more time than money (those people don't 
> count their hours ;-). You can spend some time building the Gnat you 
> need from the FSF tree *if you are already an Adaddict*.
> 
> If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks 
> like, you want a ready-to-run distribution. You download Gnat from ACT's 
> site (with some suspiscion: why do these guys require me to fill a 
> form), and then you discover that you are forced to use it for free 
> software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, Ada is just for those dreamers 
> of the FSF, nothing like an industrial language". Of course, these 
> people do not make the difference between Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro.
> 
> Conclusion: it is a real disservice for the promotion of Ada that will 
> not bring one single extra customer to AdaCore.
> 

right, and when you want to buy GNAT from AdaCore, then you are told 
that you have to buy at least 5 licences (you cannot buy 2 or 3), the 
price is 14.000 euros (+ 7.000 euros for GTKAda), so you've got to pay 
21.000 euros for licence for 5 seats. In my opinion this is too much, 
and some people that I talk to wanted to develop software using Ada2005 
and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and very good. Now the turn towards 
Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Pascal Obry]

Szymon,

> right, and when you want to buy GNAT from AdaCore, then you are told
> that you have to buy at least 5 licences (you cannot buy 2 or 3), the
> price is 14.000 euros (+ 7.000 euros for GTKAda), so you've got to pay
> 21.000 euros for licence for 5 seats. In my opinion this is too much,
> and some people that I talk to wanted to develop software using Ada2005
> and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and very good. Now the turn towards
> Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper.

Because you are comparing apples and oranges. You buy Delphi, AdaCore
sell supports. And you are also comparing Delphi and Ada. AdaCore is not
the only Ada compiler provider. We have pointed out (multiple times in
this thread) GNAT compilers with GMGPL licences, grab it, use it. What's
wrong with that ? You don't even need to buy it as you'll have to do for
Delphi. Frankly I fail to understand your point. You can't have AdaCore
support for free if this is what you are looking for.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus a écrit :
> 
>> - we have 2 free GNATs, one with and one without GMGPL exception
> 
> That's exactly why I think ACT made a very bad move.
> 
> If you  are a 5 persons company (the ones most hit by the current 
> decision), you generally have more time than money (those people don't 
> count their hours ;-).

Yeah, I know. ;-)

> If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks 
> like, you want a ready-to-run distribution.

Then just pick one (or use the one that comes with your OS).
If Windows programmers need a squarish colored window in
order to conceive of a compiler as a compiler,
then there is a business opportunity. Write another colorful GNAT
installer that promises ease of use. Use the MS trick. This has been
suggested many times, and if the installer is worth it, I'll be
among those who will consider bying at an adequate price.

> You download Gnat from ACT's 
> site (with some suspiscion: why do these guys require me to fill a 
> form), and then you discover that you are forced to use it for free 
> software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, Ada is just for those dreamers 
> of the FSF, nothing like an industrial language". Of course, these 
> people do not make the difference between Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro.

(Isn't this mere speculation? So no conclusions to be draw from this.)

I don't think anyone can overlook the eye catching distinctions
between the GNAT versions at the download site. I have seen this
elsewhere, Eiffel software, Borland, Microsoft, .... 

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Szymon Guz wrote:

> In my opinion this is too much, 
> and some people that I talk to wanted to develop software using Ada2005 
> and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and very good. Now the turn towards 
> Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper.

This looks like a one-factor analysis to me. As Pascal said,
you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Delphi
and Ada 2005, so there might have been other factors leading
to the decision. Perhaps like "Every one is ...", "I learned
Pascal...", etc. Note also the price of Janus/Ada + CLAW,
it's not too high for what you get.

Could you ask your friends what really made them abondon
Ada, not GNAT?

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Szymon Guz]

Georg Bauhaus napisał(a):
> Szymon Guz wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion this is too much, and some people that I talk to wanted 
>> to develop software using Ada2005 and GTKAda as it was good, cheap and 
>> very good. Now the turn towards Delphi|Builder as it is much cheaper.
> 
> 
> This looks like a one-factor analysis to me. As Pascal said,
> you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Delphi
> and Ada 2005, so there might have been other factors leading
> to the decision. Perhaps like "Every one is ...", "I learned
> Pascal...", etc. Note also the price of Janus/Ada + CLAW,
> it's not too high for what you get.
> 
> Could you ask your friends what really made them abondon
> Ada, not GNAT?

As far as I know from them:

Price ( GNAT + GTKAda for 5 seats costs about 21.000 euros) while Delphi 
costs about 5.000.

With Delphi you get much more components for:
   - databases
   - visualization
   - GUI

Other needed components you can easily find|buy on the net instead of 
writing.

I think that's all;


Theese programs where to be some database oriented software and some 
educational programs (e.g. for learning languages).

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Steve Whalen]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
> > The FSF CVS tree is NOT equivalent because "we" have to compile usable
> > binaries on whichever platform we want to use the Ada compiler on,
>
> You don't have to compile GNAT yourself if you are using Windows,
> or GNU/Linux (or Solaris, I believe), or Mac OS X. That should cover
> a number of non-embedded platforms, don't you think?
> In fact, Debian/GNU Linux has an integrated set of additional libraries
> for use with GNAT.

I'm sorry I started out that paragraph with "compiling".  I
should have skipped that and gone straight to the real problem
with the FSF tree releases:

>> I can't think of a single time so far when the FSF gcc Ada
>> has been as "good" as any of the AdaCore public releases
>> because of the difficulty of getting a "stable" version of
>> Ada in the CVS repository at the same time the rest of gcc
>> was "stable".

This is why we will miss the AdaCore GMGPL public releases.

The GMGPL code may be buried in the FSF source tree, but the C
and C++ languages still drive the FSF "releases".  Ada is just
along for the ride and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct
me, but I don't recall a single time since Ada "joined" the FSF
tree that the FSF release produced an Ada compiler that was
equal in quality to any of the AdaCore public releases.

The C++ compiler in an FSF release is usually just fine, but Ada
does not have "the clout" to hold up an FSF/gcc release until
the Ada portion is "stable".

Steve

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Steve Whalen]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> I can't find statements that Ada Core is/was commited to releasing
> only GMGPL packages of their software.
> I do remember reading that they would continue to contribute
> their sources to the FSF tree.

A quote from a message from Robert Dewar of ACT/AdaCore speaking
on behalf of ACT/AdaCore on September 14, 1997 announcing GNAT
3.10p here in comp.lang.ada:

"Ada Core Technologies will continue to develop the GNAT
technology, and make public releases from time to time
reflecting the state of this important developing technology."

I agree with the old saying: "Actions speak louder than words".

NYU/ACT/AdaCore did _only_ GMGPL "public releases" for 10 years
from 1994 through 2004 (not a single GPL only release was done
by AdaCore until 2005).

The public promise to keep making public releases combined with
the fact that for 10 years ACT/AdaCore only did GMGPL releases
is why some of us are disappointed in the GPL only public
release by AdaCore in 2005.

Also, AdaCore was completely consistent for that entire 10 year
period in it's announced philosophy which showed AdaCore
understood that Ada is _not_ C++ and needs all the help it can
get to keep Ada from dying out as a language.

Maybe AdaCore now thinks that Ada has hit the big time and no
longer needs all the help it can get. From 1994 to 2004 that
meant that small shops that must do proprietary closed source
work to survive, but who cannot at least initially afford a
vendor's support were able to use a commercial quality (but not
validated) compiler called GNAT.  Now they must buy a non-GNAT
Ada compiler, or as has been noted elsewhere, switch to
Borland's Delphi (if they like strongly typed languages) or
switch to C++, etc. Not a positive step for the Ada language in
the long run.

Steve

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Georg Bauhaus a écrit :
>> If you are a newcommer and just want to have a look at what Ada looks 
>> like, you want a ready-to-run distribution.
> 
> 
> Then just pick one (or use the one that comes with your OS).
> If Windows programmers need a squarish colored window in
> order to conceive of a compiler as a compiler,
> then there is a business opportunity. Write another colorful GNAT
> installer that promises ease of use. Use the MS trick. This has been
> suggested many times, and if the installer is worth it, I'll be
> among those who will consider bying at an adequate price.
Yes, a nice looking ready-to-use distribution is very important for the 
promotion of Ada. That's why everyone was happy when Adacore announced a 
new public version, long after the oldish 3.15p. And then everyone was 
disappointed to see that it had been done in a way that would have an 
adverse effect for the goal of promoting Ada.

Of course, anyone could do another one. AdaCore has the tools to do it 
in a minute, but they don't want to. Now, someone has to go into all the 
nasty details of making a nice distribution to replace AdaCore. Who will 
do it? I don't think anybody will - and I regret it. I would bet that if 
such a distribution did appear, AdaCore would revert its position in the 
next week.

>> You download Gnat from ACT's site (with some suspiscion: why do these 
>> guys require me to fill a form), and then you discover that you are 
>> forced to use it for free software only. Immediate conclusion: "Oh, 
>> Ada is just for those dreamers of the FSF, nothing like an industrial 
>> language". Of course, these people do not make the difference between 
>> Ada, Gnat and Gnat-Pro.
> 
> 
> (Isn't this mere speculation? So no conclusions to be draw from this.)
What I mean is that I can't imagine a "use case" where a customer would 
chose to use AdaCore's services due to this policy, and would have not 
if a GMGPL distribution were available *from Adacore*.

OTOH, I can imagine many "use cases" where this situation harms the 
promotion of Ada.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Hyman Rosen]

Steve Whalen wrote:
> From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do
 > proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at
 > least initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a
 > commercial quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT.

I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold
as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers?
Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining?

I'm afraid that those people for whom you show concern may not
exist.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Niklas Holsti]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
> 
>> From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do
> 
>  > proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at
>  > least initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a
>  > commercial quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT.
> 
> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
> written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold
> as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers?
> Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining?

I am not the original poster, but in part answer to your question, 
I am writing software in Ada that is meant to be sold mainly as a 
non-customized product to multiple customers.

I did "complain" about GNAT GPL 2005 in the sense that I voted for 
some other GNAT (that is, a GMGPL GNAT) to be the Debian Ada 
compiler. But I see that GNAT GPL 2005 has many advantages, 
perhaps most importantly less work for the Debian Ada team. I am 
prepared to use some of my own effort and money to have a non-GPL 
compiler, for example the FSF GNAT. I am also experimenting with 
the Janus/Ada compiler. The price of the Aonix compiler would be a 
significant hurdle for me and GNAT Pro is beyond my ceiling at 
this time.

So, that's one data-point for you. As I recall, some of the others 
who voted for a GMGPL Debian compiler were in the same position.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Steve Whalen wrote:

> The GMGPL code may be buried in the FSF source tree, but the C
> and C++ languages still drive the FSF "releases".  Ada is just
> along for the ride and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct
> me, but I don't recall a single time since Ada "joined" the FSF
> tree that the FSF release produced an Ada compiler that was
> equal in quality to any of the AdaCore public releases.

Is it more about knowing that FSF GNAT is in good shape,
or is it about being told by AdaCore that a GNAT is in
good shape? For a long time now the the 3.4.x GCCs from the FSF
had an Ada compiler that was just fine WRT ACATS. There were
issues with NPTL, OS stuff, installation path trouble with
mixed ACT and MinGW installations etc. IIRC.


> The C++ compiler in an FSF release is usually just fine,

The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping
a release.
Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues?
I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"?

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Maciej Sobczak]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping
> a release.
> Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues?
> I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"?

I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of "good 
enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever.

The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to 
overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can 
also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that 
with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be 
released.


-- 
Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[none]

> The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to 
> overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can 
> also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that 
> with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be 
> released.

However, I am sure that it came with appropriate user documentation, 
which you might want to read (in particular the switches section), 
before assuming something is broken...

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Emmanuel Briot]

> The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to 
> overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can 
> also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that 
> with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be 
> released.

However, I am sure that it came with appropriate user documentation, 
which you might want to read (in particular the switches section), 
before assuming something is broken...

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Martin Dowie]

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping
>> a release.
>> Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues?
>> I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"?
>
> I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of
> "good enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever.
>
> The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to
> overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I
> can also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess
> that with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would
> not be released.

Even with "-gnato"????

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Maciej Sobczak]

Martin Dowie wrote:

>>I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of
>>"good enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever.
>>
>>The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to
>>overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I
>>can also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess
>>that with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would
>>not be released.
> 
> Even with "-gnato"????

That's exactly the point - I *can* use -gnato and get the expected 
functionality (which means errors when overflowing), but I had to learn 
about this switch the hard way. I've expected the Ada compiler to be 
compliant *by default* and force me to go through some pain to overcome 
the rules, not the other way round, so for me this was disappointing. 
This is where the arbitrary meaning of "good enough" comes into play. 
There's always appropriate definition of "good enough" that makes a 
particular product satisfactory or disappointing - depending on what we 
want to prove.

Coming back to the question why g++ is released in spite of the "issues" 
- it took many years of development to get it more or less compliant to 
the C++ standard from 1998, so all releases really had/have issues. Not 
releasing would mean that the community could not gain any new 
experience - and this experience and resulting feedback is important for 
the project (and the community) to make progress.


-- 
Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Michael Bode]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
> written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold
> as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers?
> Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining?

I'm just working on software that is meant to be distributed
non-customized to multiple customers. It is GUI for some industrial
hardware that we sell. It is not yet deceided if it will be sold or
given away for free (as in beer). But distributing it with sources
gives my management headaches. One reason is that some adventurous
customer with GNAT could create a version that is able to damage the
hardware.

This is a one programmer project and that alone is enough to prevent
me from being eligible as a AdaCore customer.

-- 
Michael Bode

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <psl8f.23408$dW6.22731@trndny09>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
>> From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do
>  > proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at
>  > least initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a
>  > commercial quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT.
> 
> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
> written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold
> as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers?

	http://www.ljk.com/ljk/ljk_security.html

> Do any of them show up here in c.l.a?

Yes.

> Are they complaining?

We don't use GNAT.

> I'm afraid that those people for whom you show concern may not exist.

Of course you know that proving their non-existence is not possible :-)

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to 
> overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can 
> also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that 
> with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be 
> released.

With any Ada compiler you can overflow signed integer types without causing an 
exception. It's called pragma Suppress.

The problem is that it's the default behavior with GNAT. GNAT is not, by 
default, an Ada compiler. You need to add -gnato and -fstack-check to make it one.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Blessed are they who convert their neighbors'
oxen, for they shall inhibit their girth."
Monty Python's Life of Brian
83

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeff Creem]

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping
>> a release.
>> Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues?
>> I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"?
> 
> 
> I guess that for any product there exists an arbitrary meaning of "good 
> enough" that can prevent it from being released, ever.
> 
> The version of GNAT that I got with my Linux distribution allows me to 
> overflow the Integer type without any exceptions at run time (and I can 
> also define my own range and overflow it without error). I guess that 
> with some chosen meaning of "good enough" this compiler would not be 
> released.
> 
> 

So just to be totally clear about what other are saying here... Every 
version of GNAT from every source has always acted this way.

It also is non-standard in terms of the way it does elaboration checking 
(but better).

It also is non-standard in terms of the way it does stack checking.

This is not an issue unique to the FSF tree. These are design decisions 
made by Ada Core Technologies many many years ago.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Martin Krischik]

Am 28.10.2005, 09:41 Uhr, schrieb Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr>:

> Of course, anyone could do another one. AdaCore has the tools to do it  
> in a minute, but they don't want to. Now, someone has to go into all the  
> nasty details of making a nice distribution to replace AdaCore. Who will  
> do it? I don't think anybody will - and I regret it. I would bet that if  
> such a distribution did appear, AdaCore would revert its position in the  
> next week.

Actualy I will try to take over the appropiate SourceForge project (yes  
there is one - it relased a MS-Dos version in 2002) and make x86_64  
releases for SuSE available.

Anyone to join.

Martin

PS: Sourceforge because it has lots of mirrors - anything released there  
stays for good.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jeff Creem]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> Am 28.10.2005, 09:41 Uhr, schrieb Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr>:
> 
>> Of course, anyone could do another one. AdaCore has the tools to do 
>> it  in a minute, but they don't want to. Now, someone has to go into 
>> all the  nasty details of making a nice distribution to replace 
>> AdaCore. Who will  do it? I don't think anybody will - and I regret 
>> it. I would bet that if  such a distribution did appear, AdaCore would 
>> revert its position in the  next week.
> 
> 
> Actualy I will try to take over the appropiate SourceForge project (yes  
> there is one - it relased a MS-Dos version in 2002) and make x86_64  
> releases for SuSE available.
> 
> Anyone to join.
> 
> Martin
> 
> PS: Sourceforge because it has lots of mirrors - anything released 
> there  stays for good.


I don't expect that they will reverse their position but I do think that 
  taking over the old sourceforge project is a good thing.

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Anh Vo]

I would like join but with a little time basis due to my full time job.


AV

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Marc A. Criley]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
> written in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold
> as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers?
> Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining?
> 
> I'm afraid that those people for whom you show concern may not
> exist.

You may be right.

Or they simply may not hang around here.

There are a few here that have already stated that their intent is to 
actually produce Ada-implemented "shrinkwrap" product, and I'll admit I 
count myself among them.  For many of us, though, it's still in the 
"intent" mode, and we're working hard on it whenever we can slip in the 
time, so as to hopefully someday get into the "shipping" mode :-)

For myself, I've "come to an understanding" (fully compliant with the 
GPL) with the GNAT GPL edition and what the GPL allows and disallows 
that makes it a workable development platform for me.  It comes down to 
the "AdaCore model", i.e., sell support and make the product so useful 
that your customer wouldn't think of aiding their competitors by giving 
them a copy!

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Georg Bauhaus]

Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:

> My current work will be
> distributed under an Open Source license, but I would like to have the
> freedom to advice costumers to select Ada even for closed source
> products.
 
Do you mean you'd like to advise your customers to select the free
GMGPL GNAT (as opposed to Ada) for closed source products?

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:

>> From 1994 to 2004 that meant that small shops that must do
>> proprietary closed source work to survive, but who cannot at least
>> initially afford a vendor's support were able to use a commercial
>> quality (but not validated) compiler called GNAT.
>
> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software written
> in Ada? That is, a program written in Ada which is sold as a
> non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers?

Yes.  I wrote one (not completely on my own) for a Danish publishing
house a few years ago.  I don't know how well it sold, but it _was_
sold shrink-wrapped with a nice printed manual.

> Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining?

Yes.  And yes. - But it is a few years ago.  My current work will be
distributed under an Open Source license, but I would like to have the
freedom to advice costumers to select Ada even for closed source
products.

Jacob
-- 
"... there may be many others,
 but they haven't been discovered"             -- Tom Lehrer

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:

>> My current work will be distributed under an Open Source license,
>> but I would like to have the freedom to advice costumers to select
>> Ada even for closed source products.
>
> Do you mean you'd like to advise your customers to select the free
> GMGPL GNAT (as opposed to Ada) for closed source products?

Technically, no, but in some practical cases, yes.

The specific choice of the Ada compiler doesn't matter that much to
me.  What matters is if it works for the target platforms at an
acceptable cost for the specific project.  For my only previous
shrink-wrap project, I am pretty sure we used Aonix for compiling the
delivered version.  The project budget wasn't large enough to pay for
GNAT/pro, and we only had to deliver a Microsoft version of the
application.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
xsnow | xshovel > /dev/null

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Steffen Huber]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
> written in Ada?

http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html

> That is, a program written in Ada which is sold
> as a non-customized, shrink-wrapped product to multiple customers?
> Do any of them show up here in c.l.a? Are they complaining?

Well, as I'm still stuck with a port of GNAT 3.03, I have
very little to complain...and ACT (of course) were never
interested in distributing a suitable GNAT for my OS of
choice anyway.

Steffen

-- 
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Martin Dowie]

Steffen Huber wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
>> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
>> written in Ada?
> 
> 
> http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html

No mention of Ada or any Ada-related links though... so how can we tell? :-)

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Stefan Bellon]

Steffen Huber wrote:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
> > written in Ada?
> 
> http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html

A nice piece of software that is (I only own the older CDBurn, but
anyway). :-)

Well, we (i.e. http://www.bauhaus-tec.com/) develop our software almost
entirely in Ada as well.

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. Stefan Bellon
Bauhaus Software Technologies | TTI GmbH TGZ Softwareanalysen c/o ISTE
Tel.: +49 711 78 16 221       | Universitätsstraße 38
Fax.: +49 711 78 16 380       | 70569 Stuttgart

Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <dkb2s0$pth$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:
> Steffen Huber wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm curious. Do you actually know of any commercial software
>>> written in Ada?
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.hubersn-software.com/cdvdburn.html
> 
> No mention of Ada or any Ada-related links though... so how can we tell? :-)

Presumably the listed features are those of primary importance to
would-be purchasers.   The marketplace distinguishes products by
feature sets.