Re: Why GPL for GNAT hurt(s) the Application Space

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> writes:

> On 09.10.14 00:09, David Botton wrote:
>> No one wants to waste their time and until I felt I had a viable
>> tool suite that didn't have the GPL virus in it, Ada was out for
>> public projects for me.
>
> If there is a desire to not have that source based reciprocity
> (however asymmetrical it may actually be) shouldn't this create
> an opportunity for a compiler company to offer a judiciously priced
> Ada 2005 compiler?
>  That is, whenever the "sales department" can reliably determine that
>
> - a $$$$ support contract won't make sense for this customer,
>
> - support will, by agreement, be based on goodwill, or none,
>   at the discretion of the company
>
> - use will, by agreement and in fact not become freeloading
>   (as has been the case, apparently, at AdaCore)
>
> - no misdemeanor needs to be expected, like overzealously
>   comparing compilers' features in public
>
> they would offer a command line tool for less than VS Pro, say.

That really sounds like FSF GCC. Unless people will really take fright
at "GPLv3" without reading on to "with GCC Runtime Library Exception".