* ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released @ 2006-06-15 14:20 Marc A. Criley 2006-06-15 18:55 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-15 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) McKae Technologies announces the release of DTraq versions 1.000 for GNAT 3.15p and GNAT 1.100 for GNAT GPL 2005. DTraq is available on the redesigned McKae Technologies website at http://www.mckae.com/dtraq.html. DTraq is a data logging and playback debugging tool providing near realtime data logging and analysis to aid debugging and validation. Captured, or 'tapped' data from a program can be viewed live while the program is running or, since it is being logged to a file, played back or printed out later for off-line review and analysis. DTraq differs from other logging and playback tools in that no data layout maps or byte interpretations or "data dumpers" need to be manually created. Nor is the application responsible for converting the raw binary data to text form before logging it. DTraq handles all conversion automatically by scanning the application's source code, identifying tapped data items, and extracting the information it needs to properly convert and display the logged items-simple scalar items as well as arrays and records. When the layout of data items change, rescanning automatically picks up the changes. Here are the most significant changes to DTraq since the last public release, 0.986a: - No more code generation and associated compilation needed when building a logging server. The logging server now uses an XML formatted configuration file to recognize and process tapped data items. - The command line driven "mkdtq" has been replaced with dtq-analyze, providing a GUI-driven interface for source code scanning and generation of the aforementioned configuration file. - All the DTraq applications are now prefixed with "dtq": dtq-analyze, dtq-vdt, and dtq-dv. - Data transfer between tapped clients and the logging server has been changed from a stream-based model to one of simply sending tapped data items' bytes through a socket. The result has been a significant throughput increase, and, in conjunction with the use of configuration files instead of code generation, a much simpler implementation. - The data viewer can now be started independently of the logging server, and the location of the logging server can then be interactively specified. In addition, the data viewer can switch from one logging server to another. - The need for temporary working directories has been reduced, and the remaining use has been streamlined to reduce the chance of inconsistency errors. DTraq 1.000 for GNAT 3.15p is licensed using the GNAT-Modified GPL, i.e., GMGPL. DTraq 1.100 for GNAT GPL 2005 is licensed using the full GPL, although the instrumentation portion that is compiled into the client remains GMGPL, for what it's worth. A release for GNAT GPL 2006 will be provided once its downloading server's traffic load eases. Enjoy! -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-15 14:20 ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-15 18:55 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-17 13:30 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-18 7:33 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-15 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marc A. Criley" <marccriley@earthlink.net> writes: > > DTraq 1.000 for GNAT 3.15p is licensed using the GNAT-Modified GPL, i.e., > GMGPL. > > DTraq 1.100 for GNAT GPL 2005 is licensed using the full GPL, although the > instrumentation portion that is compiled into the client remains GMGPL, for > what it's worth. Is that a change in policy or do you think/know that Code released for use with GNAT 2006 cannot have the linking exceptions (for this part of the code at least)? Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-15 18:55 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-17 13:30 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-17 14:30 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-18 7:33 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-17 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > "Marc A. Criley" <marccriley@earthlink.net> writes: > >>DTraq 1.000 for GNAT 3.15p is licensed using the GNAT-Modified GPL, i.e., >>GMGPL. >> >>DTraq 1.100 for GNAT GPL 2005 is licensed using the full GPL, although the >>instrumentation portion that is compiled into the client remains GMGPL, for >>what it's worth. > > Is that a change in policy or do you think/know that Code released for > use with GNAT 2006 cannot have the linking exceptions (for this part > of the code at least)? The licensing of DTraq is being driven by the licensing of the GNAT Run-time library. I made an effort to keep the client instrumentation packages GMGPL (by replacing GNAT.Sockets in 3.15p with AdaSockets) so that one could at least theoretically use DTraq on non-GPL code. Frankly I doubt the practicality of that, though, since DTraq uses ASIS, which is compiler-version specific, so to use the GNAT GPL 2005 version of DTraq one would have to compile and build their code with that compiler...which would require the code be GPL if it was to be distributed. I haven't acquired GNAT GPL 2006 yet, but I have every expectation that it, too, will be GPL. Continued DTraq development will be for the GNAT GPL 200x compiler versions, since those are AdaCore blessed and maintained. Unless of course someone contracts for a GNAT Pro or other version :-) -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-17 13:30 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-17 14:30 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-17 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes: > The licensing of DTraq is being driven by the licensing of the GNAT > Run-time library. > > I made an effort to keep the client instrumentation packages GMGPL (by > replacing GNAT.Sockets in 3.15p with AdaSockets) so that one could at > least theoretically use DTraq on non-GPL code. Frankly I doubt the > practicality of that, though, since DTraq uses ASIS, which is > compiler-version specific, so to use the GNAT GPL 2005 version of > DTraq one would have to compile and build their code with that > compiler...which would require the code be GPL if it was to be > distributed. > > I haven't acquired GNAT GPL 2006 yet, but I have every expectation > that it, too, will be GPL. > > Continued DTraq development will be for the GNAT GPL 200x compiler > versions, since those are AdaCore blessed and maintained. Unless of > course someone contracts for a GNAT Pro or other version :-) I have downloaded the sources (not the binaries) of GNAT GPL 2006 Edition and I confirm that ASIS is pure GPL. In addition, I am preparing a Debian package of ASIS 2006 under pure GPL. This is in contrast to the GNAT run-time library and every other library, which will remain GMGPL. So, if someone makes a Debian package of DTraq, that will be pure GPL. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-15 18:55 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-17 13:30 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-18 7:33 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-18 20:29 ` Marc A. Criley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-18 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8a-REMOVETHIS@m-e-leypold.de> writes: > "Marc A. Criley" <marccriley@earthlink.net> writes: >> >> DTraq 1.000 for GNAT 3.15p is licensed using the GNAT-Modified GPL, >> i.e., GMGPL. >> >> DTraq 1.100 for GNAT GPL 2005 is licensed using the full GPL, >> although the instrumentation portion that is compiled into the >> client remains GMGPL, for what it's worth. > > Is that a change in policy or do you think/know that Code released > for use with GNAT 2006 cannot have the linking exceptions (for this > part of the code at least)? (below, 'you' means Marc) I'm slightly out of the loop on this one, since my paid work has an AdaCore support contract; for my own OSS work, my position is: * code meant for a user to include in her product, GMGPL * code intended for tutorial/example/prototype, no restriction * code that's part of the toolset, GPL So for instance the Makefiles and GNAT Project files would be GPL, and so would code generation stylesheets. I think the lack of restriction on code meant to be customised is quite important; "this is customisable, here is the default, I place no restrictions on the use you make of it". As a potential customer of yours, I would want the part of your code that's linked with mine in my product (your runtime) to be GMGPL, regardless of the compiler you use to develop it[1]. If your code uses GNAT.Sockets, that means that if I want to distribute a non-OSS product in binary I can do so provided that I use a version of GNAT that is GMGPL -- so no change there! (and using AdaSockets would make no difference, since the rest of the runtime is in the same boat). Unless I've misunderstood DTraq, though, the recorder side _isn't_ in the same boat, it's not intended to be released to my customers; so the licence terms aren't so crucial. Clearly the binary distribution terms have to match the compiler runtime, but why should the source code? That said, I can't see any reason why the 'instrumenter' and 'recorder' parts of DTraq shouldn't be pure GPL anyway, since they're not intended to be part of my distribution; and even if they were I could comply with GPL terms for them without affecting my own product. I guess it might be different if my work and the recorder were integral parts of my overall product, but that doesn't seem very likely. [1] Do you think there's any issue with generated code? One might think that fragments of text copied into generated code could carry licence implications with them. I adapted the GMGPL & bison terms (bison copies text into generated parsers): As a special exception, when portions of this file are copied by a stylesheet processor into an output file, this file does not by itself cause the resulting file to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the output file might be covered by the GNU Public License. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-18 7:33 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-06-18 20:29 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-19 19:32 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-18 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > I'm slightly out of the loop on this one, since my paid work has an > AdaCore support contract; for my own OSS work, my position is: > > * code meant for a user to include in her product, GMGPL > > * code intended for tutorial/example/prototype, no restriction > > * code that's part of the toolset, GPL Though I've not explicitly codified it before as a position, these bullets are consistent with my approach, though I might perhaps be a little more explicit by adding: * code _available_ for a user to include in her product(s), GMGPL These covers the situation for XPath In Ada (XIA) and XML EZ Out, which were written because of DTraq, but since they have areas of application beyond that product were broken out on their own for community use. > As a potential customer of yours, I would want the part of your code > that's linked with mine in my product (your runtime) to be GMGPL, > regardless of the compiler you use to develop it[1]. Which it now is. I removed the GNAT dependencies from that code, which was primarily the replacement of GNAT.Sockets with AdaSockets, so as to get GMGPL instead of GPL (for GNAT GPL 2005 and beyond). > Unless I've misunderstood DTraq, though, the recorder side _isn't_ in > the same boat, it's not intended to be released to my customers; so > the licence terms aren't so crucial. Clearly the binary distribution > terms have to match the compiler runtime, but why should the source > code? That is true, the source code license terms aren't so crucial, the code could turn out to be tailored for a specific compiler and runtime, but distributed solely as source code, and therefore merely "inherit" the licensing of the RTL with which it is linked. I opted for GPL on the DTraq core components because it gave me the most flexibility: I could use AdaCore's free software releases, GNAT GPL 2005 and now 2006; I can utilitize any GPL or GMGPL or LGPL licensed software that I find useful; and I don't have to worry about tracking what software is under what license and who might "own" portions if modifications or enhancements were done under contract. > That said, I can't see any reason why the 'instrumenter' and > 'recorder' parts of DTraq shouldn't be pure GPL anyway, since they're > not intended to be part of my distribution; and even if they were I > could comply with GPL terms for them without affecting my own > product. I guess it might be different if my work and the recorder > were integral parts of my overall product, but that doesn't seem very > likely. The 'recorder', i.e., the DTraq Logging Server is pure GPL. The 'instrumenter' portions, DTraq.Tap, et.al., could be GPL, but their removal would be required before the distribution of your product if you're licensing with something less than GPL. However, I've suggested that the instrumentation be retained in the product because the taps can be disabled and your product run without a logging server present, and that way you retain the ability to run a deployed application in a remote debug or monitoring mode. And also, if your app requires integrated logging, DTraq can fill the bill for that as well. > [1] Do you think there's any issue with generated code? One might > think that fragments of text copied into generated code could carry > licence implications with them. From the DTraq perspective this is not an issue because the only part that would be at all likely to show up in generated code would be _instantiations_ of DTraq.Tap, and the GMGPL already covers that. -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada -- XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-18 20:29 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-19 19:32 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-19 20:12 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 0:37 ` Marc A. Criley 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-19 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes: > Simon Wright wrote: >> As a potential customer of yours, I would want the part of your >> code that's linked with mine in my product (your runtime) to be >> GMGPL, regardless of the compiler you use to develop it[1]. > > Which it now is. I removed the GNAT dependencies from that code, > which was primarily the replacement of GNAT.Sockets with AdaSockets, > so as to get GMGPL instead of GPL (for GNAT GPL 2005 and beyond). What I don't see is why using GNAT.Sockets, which as an abstract interface can be obtained GPL or GMGPL, ditto its implementations, should make a difference to the licence under which _your_ source is released? Anyone is free to use eg the Booch Components with any Ada compiler they like; certainly Aonix, probably Apex, either flavour of GNAT. Instantiating a GMGPL source using a GPL runtime is going to result in a binary that has to be issued under the GPL, sure. I would find it quite hard to justify using AdaSockets given that there is a perfectly workable and supported functionality in GNAT already. I also don't see why you've jumped through hoops to use AdaSockets instead of GNAT.Sockets "so as to get GMGPL instead of GPL (for GNAT GPL 2005 and beyond)". If I use GNAT GPL I _must_ release under GPL (if at all), regardless of any GMGPL freedoms on other library components. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-19 19:32 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-06-19 20:12 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-19 20:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-20 0:37 ` Marc A. Criley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes: > > > Simon Wright wrote: > > >> As a potential customer of yours, I would want the part of your > >> code that's linked with mine in my product (your runtime) to be > >> GMGPL, regardless of the compiler you use to develop it[1]. > > > > Which it now is. I removed the GNAT dependencies from that code, > > which was primarily the replacement of GNAT.Sockets with AdaSockets, > > so as to get GMGPL instead of GPL (for GNAT GPL 2005 and beyond). > > What I don't see is why using GNAT.Sockets, which as an abstract > interface can be obtained GPL or GMGPL, ditto its implementations, > should make a difference to the licence under which _your_ source is > released? <...> > I also don't see why you've jumped through hoops to use AdaSockets > instead of GNAT.Sockets "so as to get GMGPL instead of GPL (for GNAT > GPL 2005 and beyond)". If I use GNAT GPL I _must_ release under GPL > (if at all), regardless of any GMGPL freedoms on other library > components. OK, here we're approaching the point why I have been asking the about the reason for GPL licensing in the GNAT-6000 edition of DTRAQ. Because I'm a bit confused about the supposed interaction betwenn GPL and GMPL-Parts: If I'm writing a library L and linking it with another L2 which is under GPL (like the GNAT 2006 runtime) to obtain a product P, can I not put my Library L under GMPL? The customer would get L and supposedly L2 [*] as source (which is the intention of the GPL) with P and would be under the obligation to package L, L2 also with P2 if he happens to create modified executables and distribute them (which is also the intention of the GPL). But he would have further the option to pick the source of L from the source package and link it into som application A of his own w/o the application becoming GPL automatically. One other questions BTW (I don't know wether I'm totally serious) - Since the GNAT 2006 runtime is GPL, don't I have to distribute the GNAT runtime with the executable and my own source? Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-19 20:12 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 20:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-19 20:36 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-19 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 22:12 +0200, M E Leypold wrote: > One other questions BTW (I don't know wether I'm totally serious) > > - Since the GNAT 2006 runtime is GPL, don't I have to distribute the > GNAT runtime with the executable and my own source? See GPL, §3. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-19 20:18 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-19 20:36 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 22:12 +0200, M E Leypold wrote: > > > One other questions BTW (I don't know wether I'm totally serious) > > > > - Since the GNAT 2006 runtime is GPL, don't I have to distribute the > > GNAT runtime with the executable and my own source? > > See GPL, �3. Probably you're referring to the following sentence: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. And exactly that sentence I had in mind when I asked my question (tongue in cheek). Isn't it rather ironical that I have to distribute my source with the produced executable and that exactly that piece of code from which the "infection" started which brought my code under GPL is exactly what the receiver/user of my executable won't get? How ... well, ironic. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-19 19:32 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-19 20:12 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 0:37 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-20 5:41 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-20 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > What I don't see is why using GNAT.Sockets, which as an abstract > interface can be obtained GPL or GMGPL, ditto its implementations, > should make a difference to the licence under which _your_ source is > released? This, like your other points, is true...when considered strictly on its own merits. But in context it's not so cut and dried. There are two major personal factors that affect my OSS development efforts. First is that I want to stay as close to a vendor-supported configuration as I can, therefore my progression from 3.15p to GNAT GPL 2005, and soon to 2006. (The advocate-maintained distributions are perfectly fine and their maintainers are to be commended, but AdaCore's GNAT is the de facto standard and so I want to stay close to that.) Second is that I do want to make binary distributions, I usually prefer those, so I assume others do as well. (I know this makes me less than an OSS purist, but I prefer that I have _access_ to the source, rather than it being _required_. For most things I'm a user, not a builder. :-) So, since I'm now on the GNAT GPL 200x track, that means, in this specific case, that I'm using its version of GNAT.Sockets, which is licensed as GPL. The DTraq logging server and data viewer both use that specific package, so simply for that reason alone they and their executables are GPL. The DTraq.Tap client code needs a socket package, so while I could use the GNAT.Sockets abstract interface and then you the application builder can link with a GMGPL version of that package, you won't. Why? Because DTraq uses ASIS, and ASIS-for-GNAT is compiler and version specific, so in order for the DTraq source analyzer program to work, your application must be compilable with the same GNAT version that the source analyzer uses, i.e., GNAT GPL 2005. I know that simply compiling the code (and building the trees used by ASIS) doesn't require that your app by GPLed, but I doubt many are going to compile and test their code with one version of a compiler, but then deliver it having used another. (If for no other reason than you'd not be testing what you're delivering.) You can certainly build DTraq from source using another compiler and ASIS version, and the result will conform to the relevant licenses, and I'd be happy to do that if someone were to make it worth my while, or would certainly make available a contributed distribution alongside the distributions I maintain. All this is why in the original posting I stated "for what it's worth" when mentioning transitioning from GNAT.Sockets to AdaSockets for DTraq 1.100. Since your app is in all likelihood going to be built with the GPLed runtime if you're using DTraq 1.100, your app is going to have to be GPL anyway because of the RTL. _But_ it's not going to be DTraq that's directly causing that, so I can use the same instrumentation code for different compilers and versions (concerning myself _only_ with AdaSockets' one license, not the different GNAT.Sockets ones). In other words, the instrumentation code ought to be software _and_licensing_ portable across different compilers and versions (though I've not verified the software portability). It's simply then that the rest of the DTraq application be able to accommodate whatever compiler is being used on the application. > Anyone is free to use eg the Booch Components with any Ada compiler > they like; certainly Aonix, probably Apex, either flavour of > GNAT. Instantiating a GMGPL source using a GPL runtime is going to > result in a binary that has to be issued under the GPL, sure. Because of ASIS, though, DTraq is not like the Booch Components. ASIS is tied to a specific compiler-version distribution, and therefore its license. > I would find it quite hard to justify using AdaSockets given that > there is a perfectly workable and supported functionality in GNAT > already. GNAT.Sockets actually has some extra functionality (regarding 'socket select') that I took advantage of in the DTraq core components. > I also don't see why you've jumped through hoops to use AdaSockets > instead of GNAT.Sockets "so as to get GMGPL instead of GPL (for GNAT > GPL 2005 and beyond)". If I use GNAT GPL I _must_ release under GPL > (if at all), regardless of any GMGPL freedoms on other library > components. Actually I didn't have to jump through hoops, it was an easy changeover. The initial releases of DTraq used AdaSockets, and I had previously migrated to GNAT.Sockets primarily to gain access to the socket select capabilities. And yes, "if [you] use GNAT GPL [you] _must_ release under GPL", but that's because you are using _GNAT_GPL_, _not_ DTraq.Tap. -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-20 0:37 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-20 5:41 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-20 13:23 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-20 15:21 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-20 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Thanks for a valuable discussion. The only reason I got involved was that I felt that people were getting the wrong end of the stick about GPL licensing and the impact on their own code, which is as we all know an emotive issue round here. A question -- is DTraq endian-independent? that is, could the client be a PowerPC (in our case, running VxWorks) and the logging server be an Intel machine? We achieve this using the stream attributes, with a special little-endian System.Stream_Attributes body that converts to/from the native PPC form. This has the advantage that the target runtime is the vendor's, unmodified. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-20 5:41 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-06-20 13:23 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-20 15:21 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-20 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > Thanks for a valuable discussion. > > The only reason I got involved was that I felt that people were > getting the wrong end of the stick about GPL licensing and the impact > on their own code, which is as we all know an emotive issue round > here. Agreed, on both counts :-) Licensing can get tricky, particularly when part of the product has to get compiled/linked into the client. > A question -- is DTraq endian-independent? that is, could the client > be a PowerPC (in our case, running VxWorks) and the logging server be > an Intel machine? We achieve this using the stream attributes, with a > special little-endian System.Stream_Attributes body that converts > to/from the native PPC form. This has the advantage that the target > runtime is the vendor's, unmodified. At the moment, no. I have the approach worked out for adding that, but its addition has to compete with numerous other improvements on the list :-) -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-20 5:41 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-20 13:23 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-20 15:21 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 6:17 ` Martin Dowie 2006-06-21 18:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-20 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > Thanks for a valuable discussion. > > The only reason I got involved was that I felt that people were > getting the wrong end of the stick about GPL licensing and the impact > on their own code, which is as we all know an emotive issue round > here. It's less emotion on my part or obsessiveness for my code. It's just simple "business considerations". Let's take GtkAda which now seems to be GPL only. With the new situation I have 2 options: - Develop GPL code only. Some customers don't like that, since they don't want to grant me the right to distribute the control programs I'm writing for them. Probably that could be fixed by having a contractual agreement (perhaps, IANAL), but usually their lawyers are unsettled enough by the vicinity to GPL code that they are not sure wether I'm actually bound to that agreement: So to be sure they prefer to let their process control made in C# or Java (That case is real so don't coplain to me anyone). - I start big and pay the ACT support with (one hears $ 15000.- / year). Of course that would rise the fix cost for Ada programming so much that I would be forced to programm Ada in almost 100% of the projects. There is no market for this. The market could be bootstrapped by starting small projects with Ada and using them as reference and the knowhow acquired there to get the next customer(s) to try Ada instead of Java or .Net. Unfortunately that bootstrapping needs time. With the old GMPL license for GtkAda one could try to bootstrap a clientele of Ada customers slowly. With GPL-or-buy-ACT-support and an entry barrier of $15000.- its a all-or-nothing proposition. Certainly nothing to stimulate a community which would use Ada instead of C. A bit emotion admittedly comes in at the point where license change from GMPL to GPL (this is a restriction as I have tried to explain), after on has inversted time and effort into Ada infrastructure (which is now over day and year only good for option 1: GPL softwaredevelopment). I've been following the discussion on c.l.a. on the issue of GNAT GPL in c.l.a end of last year and have to say that I found the GPL protagonists ("Do you expect AdaCore to work for nothing") also not quite so cool and rational then. Obviously there is emotion on both sides here. One of the reasons I didn't participate then and one of the reasons I already sort of regret that I started this discussion. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-20 15:21 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-21 6:17 ` Martin Dowie 2006-06-21 12:16 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 18:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2006-06-21 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > It's less emotion on my part or obsessiveness for my code. It's just [snip] > the reasons I already sort of regret that I started this discussion. GNAT isn't the only Ada compiler out there - there are low cost <$1000 Ada compiler available from Aonix and RR Software. Both have GUI builders (at least for Windows). Cheers -- Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-21 6:17 ` Martin Dowie @ 2006-06-21 12:16 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 18:00 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-21 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > It's less emotion on my part or obsessiveness for my code. It's just > [snip] > > the reasons I already sort of regret that I started this discussion. > GNAT isn't the only Ada compiler out there - there are low cost <$1000 > Ada compiler available from Aonix and RR Software. Both have GUI > builders > (at least for Windows). Exactly: "at least for windows". As I said: I regret I started the discussion. I actually wanted to understand why someone thinks he must license under GPL when I thought wether he could use GMGPL. But the discussion is already being distorted into "but you can use other compilers than GNAT". Sorry, Martin, but "just any Ada compiler" is hardly a criterion to select a programming system. And to "GNAT isn't the only Ada compiler" out there I'm tempted to respond that GNAT isn't even the only compiler out there. :-). Again: I already regret that I started this. I also don't know what "GNAT" has to do with licensing terms of libraries (DTRAQ, or what I used as an example in my recent post, GtkAda). Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-21 12:16 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-21 18:00 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2006-06-21 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes: > >> M E Leypold wrote: >>> It's less emotion on my part or obsessiveness for my code. It's just >> [snip] >>> the reasons I already sort of regret that I started this discussion. > >> GNAT isn't the only Ada compiler out there - there are low cost <$1000 >> Ada compiler available from Aonix and RR Software. Both have GUI >> builders > >> (at least for Windows). > > Exactly: "at least for windows". As I said: I regret I started the > discussion. I actually wanted to understand why someone thinks he must > license under GPL when I thought wether he could use GMGPL. > > But the discussion is already being distorted into "but you can use > other compilers than GNAT". Sorry, Martin, but "just any Ada compiler" > is hardly a criterion to select a programming system. And to "GNAT > isn't the only Ada compiler" out there I'm tempted to respond that > GNAT isn't even the only compiler out there. :-). No, but it seems to be the one you're interested in otherwise why mention AdaCore and their ~$15k license? :-) Cheers -- Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released 2006-06-20 15:21 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 6:17 ` Martin Dowie @ 2006-06-21 18:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-21 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > > It's less emotion on my part or obsessiveness for my code. It's just > simple "business considerations". Let's take GtkAda which now seems to > be GPL only. With the new situation I have 2 options: The versions of GtkAda I've got (1.13, 2.2.0, and 2.4.0 for Windows) all include only the GMGPL licensing language, so I'm fairly confident that that is the license for them. Are your clients going to distribute binaries? If not, it doesn't seem to be anything that you even need to mention. You create the SW, give them binaries and the source (which they probably will never look at), and everyone's happy. > - I start big and pay the ACT support with (one hears $ 15000.- / > year). Of course that would rise the fix cost for Ada programming > so much that I would be forced to programm Ada in almost 100% of > the projects. There is no market for this. Does anyone (other than you) really care what language you use? I think the figure you're quoting is for GNAT Pro; I don't know what support for GtkAda only would cost, or even if it's available. -- Jeff Carter "To Err is human, to really screw up, you need C++!" St�phane Richard 63 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-06-21 18:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-06-15 14:20 ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released Marc A. Criley 2006-06-15 18:55 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-17 13:30 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-17 14:30 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-18 7:33 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-18 20:29 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-19 19:32 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-19 20:12 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-19 20:18 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-19 20:36 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-20 0:37 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-20 5:41 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-20 13:23 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-20 15:21 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 6:17 ` Martin Dowie 2006-06-21 12:16 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-21 18:00 ` Martin Dowie 2006-06-21 18:25 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox