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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How is Ada's GNOGA better than C++'s Wt?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 20:36:35 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ly7eo0pxh8.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <81d14d85-1c41-4558-93e5-6a6d9ecf091a@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: h2725194.stratoserver.net;
 posting-host="0e28988de108da281e5475d3050bb8e9";
	logging-data="29767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8HtlwDutRg/Fxv7CyUWLCSJzJaIXvaDY="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+JvCekGU2S+yMWtAsqcuecxKk4w=
	sha1:0SxweJMp6sjsrAOkjuZ8Tg2MTgE=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52440
Date: 2018-05-18T20:36:35+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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