Re: How is Ada's GNOGA better than C++'s Wt?

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:

> From over on the lengthy How-to-get-Ada-to-”cross-the-chasm” posting,
> but this topic deserves its own top-level posting:

> This brings up a related topic: What are all the ways that Ada's GNOGA
> at http://Gnoga.com is better than, say, C++'s Wt (pronounced Witty*)
> at http://WebToolkit.eu/wt?  I'll start:
> 1) GNOGA is written in Ada instead of C++.
> 2) GNOGA is licensed as GPLv3 with Runtime Exception, as opposed to
> Wt's GPLv2 (apparently without any variant of the Runtime Exception).
> (It isn't clear to me at all what is and is not a ‘distribution’ of
> derivative works** of a Wt website under GPLv2, and thus who is
> entitled to receive the source code of your [entire?] Wt-based
> website.  Matters are much much clearer with GNOGA's Runtime
> Exception, I think: it sure looks like you can proprietarily own your
> GNOGA-based website's software, correct?)
>
> * analogous to Qt's cute or cutie (or SQL's sequel, for that matter)
>
> ** Are WWW-browser-based possessors of Javascript generated & served
> by Wt allowed to request source code to your Wt-based WWWsite under
> GPLv2-without-Runtime-Exception?  If a Wt-based WWWsite is hosted on a
> server that you do not own (e.g., the cloud), can the hosting provider
> request source code to your Wt-based WWWsite under
> GPLv2-without-Runtime-Exception?  Once someone has requested &
> received source code to your Wt-based website, are they then allowed
> under software freedom to redistribute your [entire?] WWWsite's source
> code?  (These questions seem less likely under GNOGA's licensing.)

I suppose one could consider the Affero licence:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

Though it's a tad hard to spot the difference