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

["G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>]

On 09.10.14 15:18, Simon Wright wrote:
> That really sounds like FSF GCC. Unless people will really take fright
> at "GPLv3" without reading on to "with GCC Runtime Library Exception".

FSF GCC still does not "feel good":

World views aside, and FUD aside, consider the lack of one
conveniently installable package like AWS on Windows™ producing
anger. Anger is a strong motive, as is convenience.

Also, on Windows™, GCC is not perceived to be native if it sits
on top of Cygwin or MingW. These and Windows™ itself require
licensing issues. It is less important, I thinkm how these are resolved
than how much convincing the resolution takes. (Robert Dewar,
on stage, explains how much time it had taken AdaCore to get
a company lawyer understand "You have the source" when the
lawyer asked for source code escrow. I'm mentioning this because
it isn't technical rationality that is at work in cases like these.)

I understand that packaging of an affordable "feel good" compiler
has failed to be a commercial success in the past. But if a
compiler maker sells a copy to a "cleared" individual, it should
help him free up some personal money, and help Ada be viable
outside the niche. Would this be so bad?


And another thing:
how long Apple is Apple going to tolerate non-LLVM compilers on Mac?