Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

["Jedi Tek'Unum" <jeditekunum@gmail.com>]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:44:20 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Jedi Tek'Unum" wrote in message 
> > So here we are 30+ years since Ada was created and 20+ years since GNAT
> > was created. An ISO standard language. Still fractured (3 different
> > levels - FSF/GPL/Pro) and still huge platform availability barriers.
> 
> Now you're complaining that there is *too* much choice in Ada.

Choice is good when it is similarly functional options.  Valid code that doesn't work on all of them is a problem!

The non-Pro should be the bleeding edge constantly being updated with fixes and enhancements.  The Pro should be the delayed quality version.

> That's weird, 
> Linux doesn't seem to have a problem with too much "fracturing" (Ubuntu, 
> Debian, Red Hat, ad nausum...). Nor with platform availability (during most 
> of its history, it was only practically available on x86). Not much 
> difference between Linux and GNAT on that.

I don't use Linux for a variety of reasons, that being one.

I suppose I'm now considered outdated but when something isn't available for Solaris something is wrong.  Perhaps the ACT thinking is that the GPL version only needs to be on "Desktop" OSes.  (Probably because they only see it as an evaluation release and a minimal way to appear to be complying with the GPL.) Yet this retired guy runs Solaris on his server because it simply kicks butt.  The same argument about using Ada because it is the best language applies to OSes too.  (Yeh, I can [and have] built Ada for Solaris - painfully.)

> Can't even imagine what you mean by this. Ada, as tool, will never make as 
> much money as less professional languages. That's because you can't sell 
> ongoing maintance to fix software that works right (and thus doesn't need to 
> be fixed).

So Ada kills itself then?

> AdaCore is doing the only thing that makes sense to monitize Ada. If there 
> was any other way that made sense, my guess is that AdaCore would have tried 
> it already.

And that is the problem.  A programming language largely controlled by one company that needs to monetize it.

Seems that Sun was able to create Java and monetize it (even more so with Oracle).  Yet I can still use it for my own development for free.  (Same for Solaris.)  Free for non-commercial uses is a perfect balance and it works.  Linux is free yet lots of companies seem to be making a lot of money on it.  I just don't believe that there isn't a way that can work for everyone.

> Sadly, I don't think there is much future for doing things well, because for 
> that one can neither sell maintenance nor get much effort for improvement. 
> Which ultimately leads to a bleak future for humanity, IMHO.

Agreed.  So how can we fix it?