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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada to Ada Translator ?
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 15:47:09 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyef4v251u.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <100ad407-090e-4316-9746-a4469568b53e@googlegroups.com>
	<lyk1eo23vb.fsf@pushface.org>
	<477352cf-80d0-458c-b64a-4605557fef8f@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="362a2c4fae6d4f606484b893bcb736ca";
	logging-data="5071"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jaorw9fxJGqrWRPZ/9eeiEZstLwVDGYo="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p+SBRQgSi6JfyWDIjkBvX1Y8/Ks=
	sha1:KbFGIBqB2COm9w3gHqiEFtLLvPE=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56329
Date: 2019-05-18T15:47:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

foo wong <crap@spellingbeewinnars.org> writes:

> I am not trying to be confrontational, it's just that you supported
> this exact statement a year ago:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.ada/demo-ware%7Csort:date/comp.lang.ada/cdCDljZtBVg/GF8CmMJ6AQAJ
>
>
>> It's not that I am missing a feature, it's just that I am tired of
>> Adacore's games and I want to have independence from them. I feel like
>> they are trying to make free Ada compiler options "demo-ware" for
>> their expensive paid options.
>
> Why are you surprised?
>
> -Simon Wright 8/24/18

I thought that conversation was about the compiler, this one about other
tools.

> GPL'ing everything and participating on github does not make them
> hostile to free software. It's just that they had the same software
> under GPL that was under more permissive licenses before, why the
> license change unless they want to force a paid option?

AdaCore made a legitimate decision to only make public releases on pure
GPL terms. This gave rise to some hostility.

As I remember, this was because the licence position of libraries that
had been initially released under GMGPL changed; AdaCore stated that the
license was now pure GPL, in spite of downloadable releases of the code
still having the per-file GMGPL licence statement. Interesting conflict
with FSF advice there.

Later on, code for public release had the GCC Runtime Exception
terms automatically stripped.

Now, library code released as part of the Community Edition has the
Runtime Exception stripped, but the equivalent code on Github (where it
exists; e.g. not ASIS) retains it.