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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no 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: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEx1bmRpbg==?= <b.f.lundin@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:57:33 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <mae6qs$d09$1@dont-email.me>
References: <0Kgqw.953330$_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>
 <d865c2cd-dd78-4dd9-8ca5-7526bc781faf@googlegroups.com>
 <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <bb6afd60-da67-4b0a-93ca-2921b985cc3e@googlegroups.com>
 <m8ds96$po2$1@news.albasani.net> <m8em0g$a03$2@dont-email.me>
 <4984c229-bdcd-4032-bd88-cde66482e6df@googlegroups.com>
 <mae0l9$gn1$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:57:00 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e01a12243940418b1e7e1dd5c4adbe53";
	logging-data="13321"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZkLM3EWAU0/zFF/OWfw/6"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0
In-Reply-To: <mae0l9$gn1$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2ZGa9zhsP2XNkWAiQPUeGS45V2s=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24803
Date: 2015-01-29T21:57:33+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2015-01-29 20:12, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 05:58 AM, Lucretia wrote:
>>
>> They're not identical feature-wise. Pro has more work put into it than GPL as
>> does GPL over FSF. Therefore, it is crippleware as FSF is buggier than GPL
>> and GPL is buggier than Pro. One feature in Pro may be completely broken in
>> FSF and partially working in GPL. God, it took them years to sort out
>> interfaces.
> 
> IIUC, GNAT GPL is a snapshot of GNAT Pro at some point with the license
> exception removed. They then diverge as work on Pro continues.
> 

As I understood it, this is partially correct.
But I _think_ that paying customers, that
reports bugs that they think will compromise (somehow)
their business may have the bug-fix in gnat pro only, and
not merge it to gnat fsf or gpl.

So I wonder if gnat gpl really is a true snapshot.

I seem to recall that I've had code that compiles with
fairly old gnat pro (say 5.01), but not with gpl.

But I do not remember the details anymore.

--
Björn