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: Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:20:04 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <mafpd4$h71$1@dont-email.me>
References: <0Kgqw.953330$_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>
	<8b159aa5-e3f2-423f-909d-c643f0ea619d@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:20:04 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="da745e888d4a5182b5fda6212bbb0a63";
	logging-data="17633"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZmBkl+HlcPcUcBGmomoJBKlYxRCMGZww="
User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508
 git://git.gnome.org/pan2)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HppHNprkxCC5BGQN7xD6TWRDwaw=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24808
Date: 2015-01-30T11:20:04+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:25:27 -0800, Jedi Tek'Unum wrote:

> On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:58:35 AM UTC-6, Lucretia wrote:
>> On Monday, 5 January 2015 18:43:57 UTC, Jeffrey Carter  wrote:
>> > The GNAT Pro/GNAT GPL dichotomy seems unique: 
>> 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.
> 
> So how does this play out over time?  Is GPL x years behind and FSF is
> 2*x years behind?  Does the whole chain evolve over time?  In x more
> years is GPL the same as Pro today?  Overall is it worse than anything
> else (clang/llvm for example)?

FSF is behind GPL in some respects but usually ahead in others. It is 
based on the current gcc version (e.g. 4.9.3 but you can build from trunk 
if that's not new enough) while GPL is still based on a gcc4.7 release.

So it isn't universally true that FSF has more bugs than GPL : if the bug 
happens to be in the gcc backend, FSF will likely have it fixed sooner. 
If it's in the Gnat part, then the fix probably appears in GPL before it 
is migrated into FSF.

-- Brian