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!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:43:17 -0700 Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net; news.eternal-september.org Message-ID: References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad> <199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com> <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com> <87bnmd8mg2.fsf@ixod.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9d3e8459fcff41835e7b68eb9f2a14bb"; logging-data="10243"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1liDlBOOblydBYkpsV1ZugjDSsU7/muE=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 In-Reply-To: <87bnmd8mg2.fsf@ixod.org> Cancel-Lock: sha1:qv09KgmZpM29dJSTFOw9D254M0g= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24376 Date: 2015-01-05T11:43:17-07:00 List-Id: On 01/05/2015 05:02 AM, Mark Carroll wrote: > > Out of curiosity, am I correct in understanding that we have the GPL one > available at all only because of contractual requirements negotiated by > the DoD? If so, does it actually satisfy their intent? I wondered if > there is some other niche for it that they had in mind. As I understand things, you are not correct. The AJPO contracted with New York University to produce an Ada-95 compiler that would fulfill a number of objectives. One was that the source code of the compiler be freely available so that others could study the way the compiler was written; this source had to have a GPL-like restriction so that any who used the source as the basis for another compiler also had to make their source code available. Another was that programs compiled with the compiler could be closed source. Another was that NYU provide copies of the compiler for "free" [which could include a charge for the actual cost of providing the copy, such as the medium on which it was provided (often a CD in 1996), making the copy, and sending it via snail mail]. Since some of the source code (standard generics) that had to have the GPL could be compiled and included in the resulting executable (because of GNAT's macro-expansion processing of generics), something not dealt with at the time by any other gcc compiler, a modified license different from the GPL or the LGPL was needed; the result was the GMGPL. Later GNAT was transferred from NYU to Ada Core Technologies, with AdaCore required to abide by the terms of the AJPO contract. That contract was for an Ada-95 compiler. As the definition of Ada 0X progressed, AdaCore included many of its features in GNAT. Eventually GNAT became a full ISO/IEC 8652:2007 compiler, and only functioned as an Ada-95 compiler with a special compiler switch. At this point the compiler no longer fell under the requirements of the contract. Since the source for this compiler was derived from the GPL source of the earlier compiler, it continued to be GPL, but there were no longer the requirements that programs compiled with the compiler could be closed source or that AdaCore provide the compiler for free. So the existence of GNAT GPL is not because of the contract; AdaCore must have another reason for releasing it. (In fact, early versions of GNAT GPL were Ada-95 compilers by default, and only acted as ISO/IEC 8652:2007 compilers with a special switch. One could, and some did, argue that these were Ada-95 compilers and so were covered by the contract and were in violation of it. Since the DoD never objected, the point is moot.) -- Jeff Carter "Blessed is just about anyone with a vested interest in the status quo." Monty Python's Life of Brian 73