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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.36.92.198 with SMTP id q189mr10146itb.34.1481292790401; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 06:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.18.211 with SMTP id g77mr5371531otg.14.1481292790256; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 06:13:10 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!n6no4648346qtd.0!news-out.google.com!j8ni20729qtc.0!nntp.google.com!p16no4644798qta.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:13:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87r35h52iy.fsf@nightsong.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.80.114; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.80.114 References: <87r35h52iy.fsf@nightsong.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: YAMI4 1.10.2 released From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 14:13:10 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32699 Date: 2016-12-09T06:13:09-08:00 List-Id: > Interesting. First thing I wondered was whether it was written in Ada, > but it seems to be mostly C++ with bindings for Ada and other lanuages. That's right. The complete library structure is explained here: http://inspirel.com/yami4/book/2.html Ada is supported in terms of thick bindings and additional functional layer= (the "general-purpose" part) on top of the core library, which itself was = written in C++. That additional functional layer means that a substantial a= mount of functionality (this includes the tasking model, which the core par= t does not provide on its own) is in fact Ada. > I notice there's a GPL version and a Boost-licensed version: [...] > Does that mean it's ok to get the Boost version and release it as part > of an open source application? The Boost license was intended for use in both open- and close-source proje= cts. It is itself very liberal and similar in nature to BSD. In short - once you have it, you can do anything with it, close it or publi= sh it. > If yes, why not just put both versions > on your web site (without tech support of course)? Are they > substantially different? They are not functionally different, but the licenses are close enough that= publishing both of them does not make any sense (that is, GPL version woul= d not make sense if the Boost version was available). > If you're saying the non-GPL version is actually closed/proprietary, > that's fine, but it would be clearer if you called it that. The idea is similar to how AdaCore distributes GNAT - both GPL and Pro vers= ions are essentially open-source, but are intended for distinct audiences. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com