From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9ea66d3dcd0bfcf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-02 11:07:53 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Vincent Marciante" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <5viG6.1064$SZ5.86996@www.newsranger.com> <3AEE0E5C.2ED1@li.net> Subject: Re: GNAT license rational (was [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:12:36 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 160.79.20.98 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 988826872 160.79.20.98 (Wed, 02 May 2001 18:07:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 18:07:52 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7097 Date: 2001-05-02T14:12:36-04:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:FuUH6.6682$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. > 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.)