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 10.182.126.47 with SMTP id mv15mr2115435obb.47.1420419411971; Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:56:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.78.65 with SMTP id z1mr41837obw.10.1420419411868; Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:56:51 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!h15no36290537igd.0!news-out.google.com!h6ni16060igv.0!nntp.google.com!h15no36290528igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 16:56:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87tx06rve6.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> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What is the best license to use for open source software? From: David Botton Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:56:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 4399 X-Received-Body-CRC: 4131644670 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24350 Date: 2015-01-04T16:56:51-08:00 List-Id: > No. GPL software is *not* shareware and does *not* prevent commercial > use, except in your opinion. Do not present your opinion as truth; this > is confusing. GPL is a license. Shareware is a sales model. You are trying to compare app= les and oranges. There is no confusion on my part or in my statements only = making something crystal clear, even if painful for some to face. In this case the company openly and intentionally publishes the run-time us= ing the GPL license to "prevent and restrict" freedom of use in proprietary= software and to discourage commercial use to _promote_ their commercial pr= oduct. That is called shareware, (restricted right product to encourage pur= chase of less restrictive right product) you may not like it it being calle= d out for what it is, but clarity is important. Promoting a shareware compiler as a community option is harmful to general = Ada advocacy. There are strong viable gcc/ada distros that are not shareware and it is im= portant to support and build on them to advocate Ada as a long term viable = language for general purpose computing not just niche computing for deep po= cket systems software. It is important that new users understand that if th= ey are using GNAT GPL they are using a "shareware product" and there are ot= her _professional options_ whatever their budget ranges for Ada use includi= ng proprietary software which is frequently needed in every domain. We all want AdaCore to not just "survive" but to "thrive" because of what t= hey send upstream to the FSF as GPL with run-time exceptions. (Disclaimer, = others may have other reasons to like AdaCore, they do much good, even if t= hey are harming the community in this area. Add the run time extension and = a become bit more humble and they would be the Arch Angels of Ada :) =20 I am happy that many of my past projects are still being used by their cust= omers and I am happy that Gnoga will be used by their customers (I know of = some exploring its use now). That's a happy thought for me. Ada wins - they= win and the community wins. You maintain gcc/ada on Debian. It encourages = use of Ada and some of those users go on to need AdaCore services or feel t= he comfort level that Ada is not some niche language because of it, etc. Ad= a wins, they win and the community wins. The many others that write Ada cod= e with unrestrictive licenses do the same, win win. GPL runtimes on the compiler (or for that matter not on any "interface" lib= rary) are not Ada "win win" solutions, not even RMS, the FSF and the Free s= oftware movement (that I consider my self a strong advocate of and have the= sloc to prove it). > Yes, it is a mistake to mix GPLv3 with runtime library exception with > GMGPL wording. Use one or the other, not a mix of the two. Thank you, I'll make the changes this week to the Gnoga headers and I'd enc= ourage then others to inspect their headers as well. I recall seeing simila= r language in many AdaCore files and parts of AWS. David Botton