Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades

[clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley)]

In article <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam@spam.com> writes:
> Simon Wright wrote:
> 
>> I don't understand. Are you saying that distributing an executable
>> affects the source code it is built from? Your source code (which you
>> would of course distribute with the executable) is what it always was
>> and its GMGPL licencing is clearly compatible with the GPL (it adds
>> rights). So the person you distribute to only has to recompile with a
>> different compiler; where's the problem?
> 
> The GPL is quite clear that a program that uses GPL code in any way falls under 
> the GPL. If the run-time library is GPL code, then any program that uses the 
> run-time library is GPL.
> 

Regardless of who is right about the effects of the GPL compiler on source
and binary distribution of programs developed using it, the fact that people
_within_ the Ada community are debating this at all shows that ACT have just
created a large amount of confusion in people potentially interested in Ada.

The following is something that Richard Stallman wrote a few weeks ago on
the Theora mailing list. (Theora is an open source video codec)

             ------------------------------------------
|>    Is how much a piece of code will be used the important factor in the 
|>    decision? Do we just want to create code which is as widely used as 
|>    possible, or do we want to write code which guarantees certain freedoms 
|>    to the user.
|
|Which of these goals is most important depends on the detalis
|of the situation.  In most cases, I think the latter is more
|important.  If someone doesn't use the program, we say
|"That's your loss."
|
|The Ogg codecs are an exception because we are also in a battle to
|convince people to switch away from formats that free software can't
|handle.  It is very important to us for non-free apps to support
|Ogg/Vorbis and Ogg/Theora.
             ------------------------------------------

Note the last paragraph. I think that Ada is pretty much in the same
situation as Theora, in that we want people to adopt it instead of other
currently more popular alternatives and that the overriding requirement
should be to keep the barrier to using Ada as low as possible.

If ACT have confused members within the Ada community, consider what the
effect will have been on potential new Ada users, who will now probably
just see the new barrier that they cannot do that same things with the
GCC Ada compiler that they can with the GCC C++ compiler.

Simon.

PS: Yes, I know that the code in the FSF GCC codebase is currently GMGPL.
How many potential new users do you think will get far enough along to
discover that, and of those who do, how many will wonder if this codebase
will now change to pure GPL as well ?

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       
Microsoft: The Standard Oil Company of the 21st century