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-Thread: 103376,71b4c0131a8a22a4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Corrected version Re: pragma License ? References: <1182493841.177772.314860@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:27:43 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:TkbTW8rlUhIN7v5K9+tV5CM+kSk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.230.101 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1182521869 88.72.230.101 (22 Jun 2007 16:17:49 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16307 Date: 2007-06-22T16:27:43+02:00 List-Id: > As for GNAT Ada. Well at the movment there are 3 version. The top of > the line is the Gnat Pro, which is under the Adacore license, and it is You really should read up on licensing. Gnat PRO is not "under the Adacore license", but under GPL. AFAI understand it's only that AdaCore won't talk to you any more if -- as a supported customer -- you redistribute the version you got from them. Since paying customers basically pay for support that would be defeating one's purpose in "buying a license" in the first place. (Buying a license? That should rather be "buying a support contract", probably). As I understand it, AdaCore doesn't even _own_ large parts of the code base (in the copy right sense). The GCC parts belong to the FSF (so they will stay GPL) and a number of libraries as well. (I admit I'm not sure about the licensing status of the new runtime). > not GPL. Then the Adacore GPL version which is at the movement > is under GPL 2. Unsure what Adacore is going to do about the GPL > version if the GPL version 3 is adopted. We will just have to wait and AdaCore maintains its code in the gcc source tree. They'll have to go with the license for gcc. > E N O U G H S A I D A B O U T T H I S ! ! ! > L E T T H I S D I E ! ! ! I know I shouldn't feed you, but on the other side I'm disinclined to let the misinformation you spread stand unchallenged. We're not talking about "opinions" here, but about facts -- which you distort in public and then want to let them stand without response. That won't wash. To a certain extent I think I (and hopefully others) owe it to posteriority, not to let FUD of that size stand unmarked. The c.l.a. archives are supposed to be a source where people expect to find useful information. The licensing question is discussed approximately twice every year (and you could have researched that befor posting) and it's not simple. I'd hate the thought that anybody took your posting(s) at plain face value. Regards -- Markus (who is fed up with licensing questions, but still thinks that facts count).