[ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Emmanuel Briot]

We are happy to announce the first public release of the XML/Ada suite of
tools.
This is a set of Ada packages that can be used to manipulate XML streams. It
includes a full XML parser (including for the DTD part), as well as
SAX 2.0 and DOM 2.0 compliant interfaces (please see the web page and the
documentation for more information on these interfaces).
It also includes a Unicode module to manipulate and convert Unicode streams.

It passes most of the applicable tests of the official XML conformance
testsuite.

This library is still considered beta, and is released under the
standard GNU Public License (GPL).  As usual, it is provided as is,
without guarantee or support. We do not recommend using of this
package in a commercial application. If you are interested in using a
supported version of this library suitable for commercial
applications, please contact sales@act-europe.fr.

This software is available freely on the
   http://libre.act-europe.fr/
web page.

Please contact the author for questions or bug reports.


Emmanuel Briot
briot@act-europe.fr

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Preben Randhol]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:19:53 GMT, Emmanuel Briot wrote:
> 
> We are happy to announce the first public release of the XML/Ada suite of
> tools.

Brilliant! 
-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
                 �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Emmanuel Briot]

Oups, I didn't test that XmlAda was compiling fine with the latest 3.13p
release of GNAT.
As a result, I have left some switches in the Makefile that didn't
exist at the time.

I'll make a new release soon, but in the meanwhile you can compile
XmlAda by removing

   -gnatwu -gnaty
from the GNATMAKE_FLAGS in the file Makefile.module (root directory)

and removing the "-u" on line 71 in the same file.

Although this will recompile some files several times unnecessarily, you will
at least be able to use the library.

regards,
Emmanuel

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[David Botton]

Is there any plans to have a public version of XML\Ada with the GNAT
Modified GPL?

David Botton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Emmanuel Briot" <briot@gnat.com>

> This library is still considered beta, and is released under the
> standard GNU Public License (GPL).

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Florian Weimer]

Emmanuel Briot <briot@gnat.com> writes:

> Oups, I didn't test that XmlAda was compiling fine with the latest 3.13p
> release of GNAT.
> As a result, I have left some switches in the Makefile that didn't
> exist at the time.

The current release of ada-mode has the same problem, BTW.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Preben Randhol]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:49:56 -0400, David Botton wrote:
> Is there any plans to have a public version of XML\Ada with the GNAT
> Modified GPL?

If it is a library isn't LGPL better?

-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
                 �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Emmanuel Briot]

"David Botton" <David@Botton.com> writes:

> Is there any plans to have a public version of XML\Ada with the GNAT
> Modified GPL?

This is not the plan currently.
We will release soon some GNAT-Modified GPLed versions of the library to
our customers that want support for XML/Ada and want to use it in their
proprietary application.
However, we will probably leave the public versions under the GPL. This means
that people can easily use this library for student projects, and for testing
the technology.

Note: All these decisions are not fully discussed yet, we are still
examining them at Ada Core Technologies.
I also don't speak for the marketing team :-)

Emmanuel

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <slrn9eibsn.1on.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben
Randhol says...
>
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:49:56 -0400, David Botton wrote:
>> Is there any plans to have a public version of XML\Ada with the GNAT
>> Modified GPL?
>
>If it is a library isn't LGPL better?

I don't think its that kind of library. The LGPL works best with run-time
libraries (libxx.so, xx.dll, etc.); the kind of stuff that it makes sense to
distribute separately in binary form. Many of the provisions in it make no sense
outside of that context. Some of them are actively harmful. For instance, if I
want to make a traditional closed-source Windows program and sell it to someone,
I have to also give them a compiler and my sources so that they can compile new
versions of the library when it is released. If it were a proper Windows DLL,
they'd only need the compiler. :-)

Generally what I'd like to see is that I can use the sources in my own program,
and distribute my program under whatever license I choose, as long as I allow
access to the Free Software sources that I used (inluding any mods I made). The
GNAT-Modified GPL accomplishes that goal.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[David Botton]

It would be sad to see ACT start to use a CYGNUS model of business.

I hope for the sake of Ada a decision will be made to keep the model as is
and release products like this in a way that I believe helps promote Ada,
under the GNAT Modified GPL. Perhaps once Ada has replaced C++ as the
language of choice by most we can look to furthering the FSF's agenda
instead of our own, that of Ada.

Just as an example, I would love to make use of the XML/Ada as part of my
Ada projects, but would almost never do so if it was under the GPL or LGPL
since it would encumber my packages that are always released under GMGPL
(tools are of course under the regular GPL).

Please reconsider and _ANY ONE ELSE_ who is looking to release Ada packages
please don't step in to this trend. If you need more explanation as to why a
regular GPL or LGPL will create problems for users of your packages not
themselves releasing code under GPL/LGPL, please e-mail me.

David Botton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Emmanuel Briot" <briot@gnat.com>

> This is not the plan currently.
> We will release soon some GNAT-Modified GPLed versions of the library to
> our customers that want support for XML/Ada and want to use it in their
> proprietary application.
> However, we will probably leave the public versions under the GPL. This
means
> that people can easily use this library for student projects, and for
testing
> the technology.
>
> Note: All these decisions are not fully discussed yet, we are still
> examining them at Ada Core Technologies.
> I also don't speak for the marketing team :-)
>
> Emmanuel

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Al Christians]

Emmanuel Briot wrote:
> We will release soon some GNAT-Modified GPLed versions of the library > to our customers that want support for XML/Ada and want to use it in 
> their  proprietary application.


What is the chance that any of the recipients of the GNAT-Modified 
GPLed versions of the library would allow a copy to slip into general
circulation with the GNAT-Modified license attached?  


Al

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <l866fqwjm0.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>, Emmanuel Briot says...
>
>"David Botton" <David@Botton.com> writes:
>
>> Is there any plans to have a public version of XML\Ada with the GNAT
>> Modified GPL?
>
>This is not the plan currently.

Ahhh. I'd foolishly assumed that the GPL was only going to be used for 0.x
releases.

>We will release soon some GNAT-Modified GPLed versions of the library to
>our customers that want support for XML/Ada and want to use it in their
>proprietary application.

You do realize that the GNAT-Modified GPL does not prevent your customers from
redistributing the software you give them to anyone/everyone else with the
GMGPL? Using easier Free Software licenses as a sales lever may only net you all
of 1 extra customer. :-)  But then you guys know way more about this business
than I do...

>However, we will probably leave the public versions under the GPL. This means
>that people can easily use this library for student projects, and for testing
>the technology.

That just means that XML\Ada will most likely *not* become the one standard Ada
XML parser, and someone else will probably end up writing a competing parser
under licensing terms more akin to the GMGPL.

Why not just use the same lever that you do with the Ada compiler? You could
claim that the only versions of XML\Ada certified to pass the XML conformance
suites (or whatever it is they call them) are the ones you directly distribute
to customers.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <IkhG6.957$SZ5.77576@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison says...
>Why not just use the same lever that you do with the Ada compiler? You could
>claim that the only versions of XML\Ada certified to pass the XML conformance
>suites (or whatever it is they call them) are the ones you directly distribute
>to customers.

Ahhh. Its "XML Conformance Test Suite". See
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xmltest/testsuite.htm (but not with
Mozilla. :-( ). 

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Vincent Marciante]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:IkhG6.957$SZ5.77576@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <l866fqwjm0.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>, Emmanuel Briot
says...
> >

<snip>

>
> That just means that XML\Ada will most likely *not* become the one
standard Ada
> XML parser, and someone else will probably end up writing a competing
parser
> under licensing terms more akin to the GMGPL.
>
> Why not just use the same lever that you do with the Ada compiler?

We need a comment from RBKD regarding the rational for the special exception
in GNAT's license.

(Maybe Ben B. can fire up his forward button ;)


Vinny


> briot@act-europe.fr

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[David Starner]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:43:20 GMT, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> You do realize that the GNAT-Modified GPL does not prevent your customers from
> redistributing the software you give them to anyone/everyone else with the
> GMGPL? 

I've never seen a wavefront release of GNAT, so it may not be much
different. In any case, that will just be one release; unless 
someone puts a lot of work into that copy, it will soon by obsolete
wrt the latest versions from ACT.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <H7iG6.2949$DW1.140771@iad-read.news.verio.net>, Vincent Marciante
says...
>We need a comment from RBKD regarding the rational for the special exception
>in GNAT's license.

I was around before that exception existed. What happened was that someone piped
up saying that their lawyers wouldn't allow them to use Gnat for their project,
as they were of the opinion that linking GPL-ed packages into their program
would require them to make the whole program GPL-ed. Thus to prevent this
scenario, all the package sources that aren't just part of the compiler itself
had an exception put in to allow linking them into an executable without
invoking any provisions of the GPL. That way GNAT itself is GPL'ed, but programs
created with it don't have to be.

Now if you are asking why this was done, rather than only allowing paying
customers that exception like they are talking about doing for the XML parser,
you would have to get a ruling from ACT on that one. But it really is their call
to make either way.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Peter Hend�n]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1453 bytes --]

"David Botton" wrote:
<snip>
> I hope for the sake of Ada a decision will be made to keep the model as is
> and release products like this in a way that I believe helps promote Ada,
> under the GNAT Modified GPL. Perhaps once Ada has replaced C++ as the
> language of choice by most we can look to furthering the FSF's agenda
> instead of our own, that of Ada.
Precisely. Of course, ACT can do as they please, but I believe this decision
will further neither their business, nor that of the Ada community.

Access to a good Ada implementation of XML/XSL/DOM/SAX and whatnot,
with a GMGPL along with the public GNAT and jGNAT, would help me, at
least, to pry open the doors into some Java/C++ sites for Ada.

<snip>
> Please reconsider and _ANY ONE ELSE_ who is looking to release Ada
packages
> please don't step in to this trend. If you need more explanation as to why
a
> regular GPL or LGPL will create problems for users of your packages not
> themselves releasing code under GPL/LGPL, please e-mail me.
I have been working on an ADA implementation of an XML parser, DOM and
tools. These would have the purpose stated above, and I nearly scrapped
that project when I first read the announcement. Now... we'll see. It needs
some
serious (re-)work before I release it anyway. If I do, it will be GMGPL.

Regards,
Peter
--
Peter Hend�n           http://www.algonet.se/~phenden
ICQ: 14672398
Teknisk Dokumentation AB          http://www.tdab.com

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[David Starner]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:02:41 GMT, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> as they were of the opinion that linking GPL-ed packages into their program
> would require them to make the whole program GPL-ed.

Which is correct.

> Now if you are asking why this was done, rather than only allowing paying
> customers that exception like they are talking about doing for the XML parser,
> you would have to get a ruling from ACT on that one. But it really is their call
> to make either way.

Not wrt to GNAT, as the copyright on that is owned by the FSF. FSF 
would have probably objected to ACT offering a different license to
its customers than to the general public. 

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[David Botton]

I don't think any one disputes that they have the absolute right to do as
they please. I am _VERY THANKFUL_ of course that the code is released to the
public at _all_ even under GPL!!

I am just saying that GPL Ada packages are of limitted use to myself and
others and is no longer a contribution to Ada advocacy, but to FSF advocacy
(something I also agree with, but my priorities are for Ada). Since Ada is
such a small player, the advocacy that FSF gets is negligable and certainly
not of much value.

David Botton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com>
> But it really is their call
> to make either way.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[David Botton]

What makes you think the exact GMGPL would be used? I am sure that if it is
ACT's intention to prevent its distribution they can easily add a clause to
do so. It is their code after all to do with as they please and restrict in
any way they please.

David Botton

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:IkhG6.957>

> You do realize that the GNAT-Modified GPL does not prevent your customers
from
> redistributing the software you give them to anyone/everyone else with the
> GMGPL? Using easier Free Software licenses as a sales lever may only net
you all
> of 1 extra customer. :-)  But then you guys know way more about this
business
> than I do...

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <mailman.988397900.7618.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>, David Botton
says...
>
>What makes you think the exact GMGPL would be used? I am sure that if it is
>ACT's intention to prevent its distribution they can easily add a clause to
>do so. It is their code after all to do with as they please and restrict in
>any way they please.
>
>"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:IkhG6.957>
>
>> You do realize that the GNAT-Modified GPL does not prevent your customers
>> from redistributing the software you give them to anyone/everyone else with >> from GMGPL? Using easier Free Software licenses as a sales lever may only net

Because that's what the message I was replying to speculated would be used. 

Personally I'd agree that it would make no sense to use the GMGPL for a
"customer release" under this scenario. In fact, that was what I was trying to
point out. I suppose they could refuse to do business with anyone who just turns
around and redistributes it. But if they are going to do that, why pretend to
give them that right in the license? They might as well be honest about it and
use a closed-source license.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Preben Randhol]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:57:58 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote:
>>If it is a library isn't LGPL better?
> V
> I don't think its that kind of library. The LGPL works best with
> run-time libraries (libxx.so, xx.dll, etc.); the kind of stuff that it
> makes sense to distribute separately in binary form. Many of the
> provisions in it make no sense outside of that context. Some of them
> are actively harmful. For instance, if I want to make a traditional
> closed-source Windows program and sell it to someone, I have to also
> give them a compiler and my sources so that they can compile new
> versions of the library when it is released. If it were a proper
> Windows DLL, they'd only need the compiler. :-)

Ah. I see. I was thinking of XmlAda as a library. :-) As to
restictiveness I understand it is GPL > LGPL > GMGPL.

Personally I'm very happy that XmlAda is released publicly, GPL is
enough for my needs at the moment. And if you want to make a software
product you can use the GPL, though you don't have to release it
publically just to paying customers, although they can pass it on I
guess if they want to :-) GPL doesn't force you to release...

-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
                 �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Emmanuel Briot]

Here is a reply from Robert Dewar to your message:



David Starner said

<<Not wrt to GNAT, as the copyright on that is owned by the FSF. FSF 
would have probably objected to ACT offering a different license to
its customers than to the general public. >>

I suggest that you do not presume to speak for the FSF. In fact Richard
Stallman has no objections to the Cygnus model. It does not affect people
writing free software, and that is his primary concern and always has been.
Actually I expected Richard to react negatively when I first heard of the
Cygnus cheme, but he didn't, and when he explained his rationale that
made perfect sense.



Emmanuel Briot
Ada Core Technologies

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <slrn9el67g.lo.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben
Randhol says...
>restictiveness I understand it is GPL > LGPL > GMGPL.

I wouldn't put it quite that way. The relation of each to the GPL is right, but
you can't really compare the LGPL and the GMGPL in such a simple way. I don't
think I'd ever use LGPL for anything other than a proper link/runtime library.
The GMGPL is useful for things like reusable Ada packages. Its really more of an
issue of what each is good for, not which is "more free".

>Personally I'm very happy that XmlAda is released publicly, GPL is
>enough for my needs at the moment. And if you want to make a software
>product you can use the GPL, though you don't have to release it
>publically just to paying customers, although they can pass it on I
>guess if they want to :-) GPL doesn't force you to release...

It does make it available to people working on GPL'ed Ada projects (of which I'm
one), so it is still a Good Thing.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <5viG6.1064$SZ5.86996@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison says...
>
>In article <H7iG6.2949$DW1.140771@iad-read.news.verio.net>, Vincent Marciante
>says...
>>We need a comment from RBKD regarding the rational for the special exception
>>in GNAT's license.
>
>I was around before that exception existed. What happened was that someone piped
>up saying that their lawyers wouldn't allow them to use Gnat for their project,
>as they were of the opinion that linking GPL-ed packages into their program
>would require them to make the whole program GPL-ed. Thus to prevent this
>scenario, all the package sources that aren't just part of the compiler itself
>had an exception put in to allow linking them into an executable without
>invoking any provisions of the GPL. That way GNAT itself is GPL'ed, but 

Well, I got no less than 2 replies from Dr. Dewar on this one. I haven't seen
one of his postings by proxy pop up here on this subject, so suffice it to say
that he *strongly* disagrees with this version of events, at least as it
pertains to the GNAT RTL.

Note that I never metioned the RTL either, and it was not my intention to do so.
I was only talking about the licenses on the packages that are distributed with
the compiler for "with"ing by users (at least the ones that aren't taken
straight from the LRM, which of course have an LRM license).

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[David Starner]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:09:06 GMT, Robert Dewar wrote:
> David Starner said
> 
><<Not wrt to GNAT, as the copyright on that is owned by the FSF. FSF 
> would have probably objected to ACT offering a different license to
> its customers than to the general public. >>
> 
> I suggest that you do not presume to speak for the FSF. 

I didn't presume to speak for the FSF; I merely offered my guess
on how they would feel about a subject.

> In fact Richard
> Stallman has no objections to the Cygnus model. 

Ah, but it's one thing for Cygnus to offer different licenses on
code it owns, and quite another for ACT to offer different licenses
on stuff the FSF owns. 

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Vincent Marciante]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
> In article <5viG6.1064$SZ5.86996@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison says...
> >
> >In article <H7iG6.2949$DW1.140771@iad-read.news.verio.net>, Vincent Marciante
> >says...
> >>We need a comment from RBKD regarding the rational for the special exception
> >>in GNAT's license.
> >
> >I was around before that exception existed. What happened was that someone > 

<snip>

> Well, I got no less than 2 replies from Dr. Dewar on this one. I haven't seen
> one of his postings by proxy pop up here on this subject, so suffice it to say
> that he *strongly* disagrees with this version of events, at least as it
> pertains to the GNAT RTL.

What I'm really wondering is whether or not having 
the exception in general, infrastructure-type Ada
code that is released is at all appropriate.  I 
thought that knowing the exact rationale for the 
GNAT would have been helpful.

Vinny 

(To reply directly, please remove the underbar and
the word following it from the address indicated.)

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3AEE0E5C.2ED1@li.net>, Vincent Marciante says...
>What I'm really wondering is whether or not having 
>the exception in general, infrastructure-type Ada
>code that is released is at all appropriate.  I 
>thought that knowing the exact rationale for the 
>GNAT would have been helpful.

Well, I think I *could* take a stab at answering this. But, lest I bring down
the "wrath of Dewar" upon myself yet again over some minor point, perhaps it
would be better if I just pointed you to some old posts that were made 5 years
ago when this matter was first being discussed. 

-------
This is a 13 message thread, most interestingly containing a suggestion from RMS
about using the GPL, with "additional permissions" instead of the LGPL.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=85399e386b2d7b8d&seekm=3v7tov%24hja%40cmcl2.NYU.EDU#p


An 11 message thread with a lot of discussion about the LGPL

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=9b9d7d64ddd3e61c&seekm=Pine.SUN.3.91.950730164218.1449A-100000%40solar.sky.net#p

A 2 message thread containing the earliest mention I could find of the
"Gnat-modified GPL".

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=22bcd04d1690b81b&seekm=43cn4vINN6il%40RA.DEPT.CS.YALE.EDU#p

A 13 message thread from about a year later about how the GMGPL (apparently now
installed and in use) affects things.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=ae613fe8e530e8a0&seekm=dewar.847550884%40merv#p

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Marin David Condic]

The problem with the universe is that just because some topic or discussion
is ancient history to us, doesn't mean that it isn't brandy-new to a whole
new class of Ada programmers. If someone knows where to go to research the
question - great. If they don't know where to research it or didn't think to
do so, I'd regard that a bit like a student asking the prof to explain Y =
M*X + B. Yea the question has been asked before and been answered before and
books have been written on the subject and sure, the student could have
found out on his own without wasting the prof's valuable time, etc., etc.,
etc. But it seems more polite, friendly and encouraging to let those new to
a subject explore it with whatever help we can offer. A friendly, helpful &
encouraging Ada newsgroup makes Ada more attractive than a mean spirited,
condescending, patronizing and impatient newsgroup might. (And not every
answer needs to be 100% accurate. Sir Isac Newton had some inaccurate
answers to explain falling apples, but they remain very useful none the
less.)

I think the references were very helpful, Ted. I hope any re-discussion of
the subject is beneficial to those just walking into the show...

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:FuUH6.6682$SZ5.545769@www.newsranger.com...
> Well, I think I *could* take a stab at answering this. But, lest I bring
down
> the "wrath of Dewar" upon myself yet again over some minor point, perhaps
it
> would be better if I just pointed you to some old posts that were made 5
years
> ago when this matter was first being discussed.

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Vincent Marciante]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:FuUH6.6682$SZ5.545769@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <3AEE0E5C.2ED1@li.net>, Vincent Marciante says...
> >What I'm really wondering is whether or not having
> >the exception in general, infrastructure-type Ada
> >code that is released is at all appropriate.  I
> >thought that knowing the exact rationale for the
> >GNAT would have been helpful.
>
> Well, I think I *could* take a stab at answering this. But, lest I bring
down
> the "wrath of Dewar" upon myself yet again over some minor point, perhaps
it
> would be better if I just pointed you to some old posts that were made 5
years
> ago when this matter was first being discussed.
>
> -------
> This is a 13 message thread, most interestingly containing a suggestion
from RMS
> about using the GPL, with "additional permissions" instead of the LGPL.
>

Thanks for providing these references.

Also, did not realize that the old newsgroup history is available again!

Vinny

(Please remove the antispam to reply directly.)

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <k2WH6.3536$DW1.170217@iad-read.news.verio.net>, Vincent Marciante
says...
>Also, did not realize that the old newsgroup history is available again!

I believe that happened last week sometime. However, it doesn't seem to go back
beyond 1995, so there may have been some prior discussion of the issue that is
lost to the mists of time.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released)

[Vincent Marciante]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:FuUH6.6682$SZ5.545769@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <3AEE0E5C.2ED1@li.net>, Vincent Marciante says...
> >What I'm really wondering is whether or not having
> >the exception in general, infrastructure-type Ada
> >code that is released is at all appropriate.  I
> >thought that knowing the exact rationale for the
> >GNAT would have been helpful.
>
> Well, I think I *could* take a stab at answering this. But, lest I bring
down
> the "wrath of Dewar" upon myself yet again over some minor point, perhaps
it
> would be better if I just pointed you to some old posts that were made 5
years
> ago when this matter was first being discussed.
>

<thread references snipped>

In 1995 Robert Dewar wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22One+important+thing+to+remember+here%2
2+group:comp.lang.ads_maxm=5&as_maxy=2001&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=dewar.807152618%

in which he says:

>One important thing to remember here is that the whole idea of the LGPL
>is precisely to solve the problems of distributing proprietary programs
>built with a GCC compiler that incorporate runtime material. This is the
>only reason for existence of the LGPL!
>
>Whether the current wording is right to achieve this needs some
examination.
>It appears that there are approaches that are workable and completely
>consistent with the current wording. For example, if you put all the
>runtime library routines in a shared library and distribute executables
>that work with this shared library, which is certainly feasible in some
>systems, this seems one approach.
>
>On the other hand, this may not be adequate, in which case we need to
>reexamine the LGPL wording to make sure that the problems are solved
>for GNAT.
>
>We will address this issue in the documentation for the forthcoming
>version 3.0 of GNAT, and make sure that any problems are ironed out.

Which gives me the impression that he would think
that it is not appropriate to have the exception in
general, infrastructure-type Ada code whose usage
is completely up to the choice of a developer (usage
is not automatic due to choosing using some program,
as is the case with a program like GNAT that might
cause otherwise GPLd code to be utilized by the
developer's own code.)

Vincent Marciante

(To reply directly, please remove the underbar and
 the word that follows it from my address.)

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Thierry Lelegard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1441 bytes --]

Ted Dennison wrote :
> I don't think its that kind of library. The LGPL works best with run-time
> libraries (libxx.so, xx.dll, etc.); the kind of stuff that it makes sense to
> distribute separately in binary form. Many of the provisions in it make no sense
> outside of that context.

I am not a lawyer (far from that), not even a GNU lawyer. However, I used
to think that LGPL precisely does not apply to shareable libraries (.so),
but only to object libraries (.a).

When you distribute a commercial software on Linux (for instance), you do
NOT redistribute any .so file, you use the one that is on the end-user's
system. On the other hand, you redistribute part of the content of the
.a files. This is why, in my opinion, LGPL applies to .a files, while
GPL is fine for .so files.

Am I wrong?

After all, forking a process running the user's "ls" executable (under GPL)
or dynamically invoking a routine from the user's libreadline.so (also
under GPL, unlike libc.so which is under LGLP) makes no difference in
terms of software redistribution.

-Thierry
____________________________________________________________________________

Thierry Lelegard, "The Jazzing Troll", Email: thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr
CANAL+ Technologies, 34 place Raoul Dautry, 75906 Paris Cedex 15, France
Tel: +33 1 71 71 54 30   Fax: +33 1 71 71 52 08   Mobile: +33 6 03 00 65 75
____________________________________________________________________________

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Carte pour Thierry Lelegard --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="thierry.lelegard.vcf", Size: 333 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Lel�gard;Thierry
tel;cell:+33 6 03 00 65 75
tel;fax:+33 1 71 71 52 08
tel;work:+33 1 71 71 54 30
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.canalplus-technologies.com
org:Canal+ Technologies
adr:;;34, Place Raoul Dautry;Paris;;75516;France
version:2.1
email;internet:thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr
fn:Thierry Lel�gard
end:vcard

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[David Starner]

On Thu, 03 May 2001 16:39:51 +0200, Thierry Lelegard <thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr> wrote:
> I am not a lawyer (far from that), not even a GNU lawyer. However, I used
> to think that LGPL precisely does not apply to shareable libraries (.so),
> but only to object libraries (.a).
> 
> When you distribute a commercial software on Linux (for instance), you do
> NOT redistribute any .so file, you use the one that is on the end-user's
> system. On the other hand, you redistribute part of the content of the
> .a files. This is why, in my opinion, LGPL applies to .a files, while
> GPL is fine for .so files.

The FSF doesn't agree; in their opinion, a lot of the technical 
arguments are moot, as what will rule the day in court is the legal
arguments. And in their opinion, linking is linking, and will be 
treated the same in court. 

In general, most people who use GPL for libaries intend for it work
the way the FSF says it works. Taking your approach with someone else's
library without their permission may find you in court, or at least 
the target of a lot of pissed-off free software people.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Tarjei T. Jensen]

David Starner wrote
>The FSF doesn't agree; in their opinion, a lot of the technical
>arguments are moot, as what will rule the day in court is the legal
>arguments. And in their opinion, linking is linking, and will be
>treated the same in court.

That would depend on you loading/linking the entire library. If you on the
other hand do this under program control (like it is common in VMS) they
will have problems, especially if the library in question is one of many.

A common technique in VMS is to load e.g. policy libraries at runtime. That
means that the people developing the libraries does it against a
specification. If you GPL your library, it does not infect the main program.
One thing I really miss in Ada is a common way of linking routines etc in a
dll at runtime (on a general computer). That would be a very powerful
feature.


>In general, most people who use GPL for libaries intend for it work
>the way the FSF says it works. Taking your approach with someone else's
>library without their permission may find you in court, or at least
>the target of a lot of pissed-off free software people.

That may well be the case.

Greetings,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Emmanuel Briot]

(I am posted this message on behalf of Robert Dewar for the second time.
 For some reason, the first time never made it to the newsgroup. Sorry
 if it might seem a little bit out of context, especially since I
 am not directly replying to the intended message, and thus am breaking
 the threading -- Emmanuel)


A note on the licensing of the XML libraries

The XML libraries are currently licensed under the GPL, allowing free
use in free software, but deliberately limiting use in software with
restricted distribution. This is intentional, and there are two reasons
for this. First these are beta libraries and it is entirely premature
for anyone to assume that the interfaces are fixed and to incorporate
them into any mission critical software.

Second, we are for this library inclined to license and distribute
this library in such a manner that they can be freely used by our
commercial paying customers, and also freely used by writers
of free software and students and others learning Ada.

This emphasizes that these are the constituencies to whom GNAT is
addressed. It is true that it may discourage some use in non-free
software, but we hope it may also encourage some people to consider
writing free software instead of non-free software. True, a byproduct
is that it makes it impossible for non-customers to use the library
to create proprietary products, but we have never targetted this
constituency in any case.

Ted said

> I was around before that exception existed. What happened was that someone
> piped up saying that their lawyers wouldn't allow them to use Gnat for their
> projec as they were of the opinion that linking GPL-ed packages into their
> program would require them to make the whole program GPL-ed.

This is what Winston Churchill would call a "terminological inexactitude"
[my first dratf said "complete and utter nonsense" :-)]. The original NYU
contract with the government required that the compiler runtime library be
licensed using the LGPL (because that is what I suggested to Chris), and
the reason was that we wanted the GNAT compiler itself to be as widely
usable as possible. Of course everyone involved understood what the GPL
meant. We did not need to wait for some miscellaneous lawyers to give
the (obviously correct) opinion that linking GPL-ed packages into a
program either requires you not to distribute the program, or to
distribute it under the GPL.

As the project developed at NYU, we discussed the matter with Stallman
and others and decided to use use the more permissive GMGPL instead of
the LGPL, because the LGPL is a pain in the neck (it assumes a rather
obsolete model of linking, does not take care of generics, and requires
distribution as object files, so it really does not achieve its objectives
very well). This change was accepted. There has never ever been a version
of GNAT with a GPL'ed runtime (before or after Ted's starting to be around)

So Ted is quite wrong here (really Ted, you should check your facts before
you post, one of the reasons I have decided to spend far less time with
CLA - I only read occasionally when someone points out a thread - is that
there is so much misinformation and ill-informed opinion expressed!).

Al Christians said

> What is the chance that any of the recipients of the GNAT-Modified
> GPLed versions of the library would allow a copy to slip into general
> circulation with the GNAT-Modified license attached?

Contrary to what was posted here, we have not decided to release any
versions of this library with a GMGPL license. The form of license to
our customers [really the only formal licenses that exist, since the
informal licenses where there is no contractual relationship are odd
legal beasts of dubious validity] has not yet been determined.

Ted said

> Why not just use the same lever that you do with the Ada compiler? You could
> claim that the only versions of XML\Ada certified to pass the XML conformance
> suites (or whatever it is they call them) are the ones you directly distribute
> to customers.

This is not a matter of "levers" at all, but rather a way of making clear
what constituencies Ada Core Technologies is addressing with both its
commercial and public releases, something that has not always been clear
to everyone in the past.

Peter Hendon said

> I have been working on an ADA implementation of an XML parser, DOM and
> tools. These would have the purpose stated above, and I nearly scrapped
> that project when I first read the announcement. Now... we'll see. It needs
> some serious (re-)work before I release it anyway. If I do, it will be GMGPL.

Well that's one good by-product of our decision already. It would have been
a shame if distributing this library had inhibited Peter from continuing his
work. It will benefit everyone in the Ada community if there are alternative
solutions to such problems. Note Peter that although the code we distribute
is copyrighted, we never protect with patents, and the important point there
is that you are not only free, but welcome, to look at our sources and borrow
any good ideas you see!

I will ask Emmanuel Briot to post this (I must say I feel that Deja did me
a favor in cutting off my connection to CLA :- I have much more time for
other activities, like improving GNAT!)

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[David Botton]

I guess the only answer to this "official" position is thank you for
distributing your code at least as GPL, it could have been a worse blow to
the Ada community.

Are you intending on extending this policy at some point to the GNAT
runtime, GtkAda or other frameworks (executables of course have always been
GPL) under the ACT wing?

David Botton

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[David Botton]

Will packages like XML\Ada that are under the new ACT policy be available
for purchase or under a very low price minimal support contract that are
reasonable for small time developers?

(The guys at RR Software must be loving this new policy :-)

David Botton

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <l84rv1tul9.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>, Emmanuel Briot says...
>(I am posted this message on behalf of Robert Dewar for the second time.
> For some reason, the first time never made it to the newsgroup. Sorry

Since a copy was cc-ed to me, I too was wondering where it was. I'm glad to see
it finally appear, as it has some good info in it (despite the personal
attacks).

>So Ted is quite wrong here (really Ted, you should check your facts before
>you post, one of the reasons I have decided to spend far less time with

Now perhaps you can see why I got so defensive all of a sudden. I'll leave it up
to everyone else's judgement whether what I said was reasonably close to the
truth, based on the old messages I referenced. What started that thread that
contained the RMS suggestion to use a modified GPL is unfortunately lost to the
mists of time, but my memory of it was that someone piped up about their lawyers
refusing to allow use of GNAT due to the GPL/LGPL issue. 

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Thierry Lelegard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2141 bytes --]

> > I am not a lawyer (far from that), not even a GNU lawyer. However, I used
> > to think that LGPL precisely does not apply to shareable libraries (.so),
> > but only to object libraries (.a).
> >
> > When you distribute a commercial software on Linux (for instance), you do
> > NOT redistribute any .so file, you use the one that is on the end-user's
> > system. On the other hand, you redistribute part of the content of the
> > .a files. This is why, in my opinion, LGPL applies to .a files, while
> > GPL is fine for .so files.
> 
> The FSF doesn't agree; in their opinion, a lot of the technical
> arguments are moot, as what will rule the day in court is the legal
> arguments. And in their opinion, linking is linking, and will be
> treated the same in court.

OK, let's be specific.

Consider a GPL executable file (say the GNU "ls") and a GPL shared
library (say "libfoo.so").

1) You say that referencing the symbol "foo" from libfoo.so and linking
   against libfoo.so makes your application fall under GPL. Right?

2) If you write (C code, sorry):

     system ("ls");

   your application does not fall under GPL because you don't *link*
   against the executable file "ls". Right?

3) Now let's assume that you don't reference the symbol "foo" any more
   and you replace your procedure call by:

     handle = dlopen ("libfoo.so", ...);
     foo_p = dlsym (handle, "foo");
     (*foo_p) (....);

   You no longer *link* against libfoo.so. There is no stronger interaction
   between your application and libfoo.so than you have with "ls" when you
   use system().

   However, the result is technically identical to point 1.

   So, do you fall under GPL in this case?

The word "link" no longer have a specific meaning these days...

-Thierry
____________________________________________________________________________

Thierry Lelegard, "The Jazzing Troll", Email: thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr
CANAL+ Technologies, 34 place Raoul Dautry, 75906 Paris Cedex 15, France
Tel: +33 1 71 71 54 30   Fax: +33 1 71 71 52 08   Mobile: +33 6 03 00 65 75
____________________________________________________________________________

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Carte pour Thierry Lelegard --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="thierry.lelegard.vcf", Size: 333 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Lel�gard;Thierry
tel;cell:+33 6 03 00 65 75
tel;fax:+33 1 71 71 52 08
tel;work:+33 1 71 71 54 30
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.canalplus-technologies.com
org:Canal+ Technologies
adr:;;34, Place Raoul Dautry;Paris;;75516;France
version:2.1
email;internet:thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr
fn:Thierry Lel�gard
end:vcard

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[tmoran]

>1) You say that referencing the symbol "foo" from libfoo.so and linking
>   against libfoo.so makes your application fall under GPL. Right?
  Your *application* isn't GPLed, but the executable file produced by
the linker is GPLed.

>     handle = dlopen ("libfoo.so", ...);
>     foo_p = dlsym (handle, "foo");
>     (*foo_p) (....);
>
>   You no longer *link* against libfoo.so. There is no stronger interaction
>   between your application and libfoo.so than you have with "ls" when you
>   use system().
>
>   However, the result is technically identical to point 1.
  No it isn't.  In (1) you are distributing a file that contains
material copyrighted (GPL) by someone else, while in (2) you are
distributing a program whose documentation says "to run this you
will need to have a copy of ... on your system."
  It's not a question of strength of interaction.  It's a question
of what's in the file(s) you are distributing copies of.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released

[Thierry Lelegard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]

tmoran@acm.org a �crit :
> 
> >1) You say that referencing the symbol "foo" from libfoo.so and linking
> >   against libfoo.so makes your application fall under GPL. Right?
>   Your *application* isn't GPLed, but the executable file produced by
> the linker is GPLed.
> 
> >     handle = dlopen ("libfoo.so", ...);
> >     foo_p = dlsym (handle, "foo");
> >     (*foo_p) (....);
> >
> >   You no longer *link* against libfoo.so. There is no stronger interaction
> >   between your application and libfoo.so than you have with "ls" when you
> >   use system().
> >
> >   However, the result is technically identical to point 1.
>   No it isn't.  In (1) you are distributing a file that contains
> material copyrighted (GPL) by someone else, while in (2) you are
> distributing a program whose documentation says "to run this you
> will need to have a copy of ... on your system."
>   It's not a question of strength of interaction.  It's a question
> of what's in the file(s) you are distributing copies of.

No, I don't agree. When you link against a shared library (.so), you
don't include anything from the .so file. You just mark a reference
and you need the .so file on the target system. So, in both cases you
don't redistribute anything that is GPL'ed.

-- Thierry
____________________________________________________________________________

Thierry Lelegard, "The Jazzing Troll", Email: thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr
CANAL+ Technologies, 34 place Raoul Dautry, 75906 Paris Cedex 15, France
Tel: +33 1 71 71 54 30   Fax: +33 1 71 71 52 08   Mobile: +33 6 03 00 65 75
____________________________________________________________________________

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Carte pour Thierry Lelegard --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="thierry.lelegard.vcf", Size: 333 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Lel�gard;Thierry
tel;cell:+33 6 03 00 65 75
tel;fax:+33 1 71 71 52 08
tel;work:+33 1 71 71 54 30
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.canalplus-technologies.com
org:Canal+ Technologies
adr:;;34, Place Raoul Dautry;Paris;;75516;France
version:2.1
email;internet:thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr
fn:Thierry Lel�gard
end:vcard