From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.182.7 with SMTP id ea7mr77670152pac.23.1420573333628; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.38.133 with SMTP id g5mr29754obk.31.1420573333515; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:42:13 -0800 (PST) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!h15no9295igd.0!news-out.google.com!h6ni6igv.0!nntp.google.com!h15no314103igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:42:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87tx03rbr2.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=73.46.72.234; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.46.72.234 References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad> <199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com> <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com> <87tx03rbr2.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware From: David Botton Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:42:13 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:191723 Date: 2015-01-06T11:42:13-08:00 List-Id: > and is therefore not impacted by the GPL "virus" I am looking to confirm that in fact linking and using software with incomp= atible licenses is legal, but if that is true then perhaps more are "covere= d" for their needs as you say than I would think. I don't believe that stat= ement 100% factual in most corporate environments. Either way my issue is about the impression and the reality of how people l= ook a language where the "community" compiler is virused. I for one would n= ever ever have written a single line of Ada code had it been this way when = I started and almost all my code was written with the then restriction free= environment in mind. I invested my time and skills with the idea everyone = wins, me the community, AdaCore, customers, etc. (note, post creating it I = was paid for one project by Act to support it for their customers, again wi= n win) We all know of many others that either walked away or won't consider Ada fo= r their projects because of _their_ impressions, reality of FSF gnat or not= . I came back only because of work like yours on Debian and in particular S= imon on Mac, and I am a GPL software author. My belief this time around, my= personal challenge, is that I can put together a package of tools that no = corporation can uses licenses as weapons against. (I make my living as a ph= ysician now and supplement with code so I may not _need_ this anymore, but = I complete what I start out to do, and that is how I got to Ada in the firs= t place). You go trying to sell a company on the idea you will be writing their softw= are but it will be under the GPL... good laugh and no deal. (there are exce= ptions of course.. but few and far between) Ada doesn't need barriers to entry like this. It is an embarrassment to all= that have created open source code in Ada over the years. Time to correct = it and the _impression_ Ada makes on new developers. Someone should try Ada and say, wow this is cool! I'll try this on my next = project or for my next customer. It shouldn't be, wow this is cool, uh oh, I can't this, I can't that, I can= 't this, oh my oh my that much to use for my sisters cake decorating busine= ss... oh common this is ridiculous that I should even need to justify how i= mportant it is to start pushing a non-viral compiler option to all newbies = and keep them away from GPL virused versions unless they are potential cust= omers for AdaCore who I would even encourage to go get it. For _students_, newbies, hobbyists, and authors of non-safety critical syst= ems a solid dev environment with out "restrictions" is a must. It is a lose= lose for everyone even AdaCore (even if they can't see beyond immediate di= rect dollar sales and are too blind to see it is their lack of creative inn= ovation and R&D for new ways to keep customers that is the real issue not c= ustomers feeling they don't need AdaCore if they can use the "free" compile= rs). So let it be, if they think that every Ada advocate is some "leach" using "= their tech" and their needs irrelevant and the community not worth their ti= me participating in actively, time for us "leaches" to start thinking... Ad= a advocates need something to advocate to the 99% of the software developme= nt world that is not a potential customer of AdaCore or toss out Ada. I'm g= iving it one more try, we will see where it goes, I gave my self a 2 year t= rial period (I'm sure that makes some happy ;) to succeed or fail, I'm now = 5 months in to that. Gnoga has been a nice start, now an IDE, some tools an= d beautiful easy to use packages. We will see. David Botton