comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:55:36 GMT
Date: 2005-09-15T11:55:36+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan.2005.09.15.11.57.05.679401@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: HKJVe.33733$d5.189111@newsb.telia.net

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:00:39 +0000, Bj�rn Persson wrote:
...
> Exactly. Until now, the license of Gnat's implementation of the standard 
> Ada library has had an exception just like libstdc++. Now this 
> announcement appears to say that the new edition will only be useful for 
> building GPL software, and that makes Jeffrey Carter and me wonder if 
> perhaps that exception has been removed.

<rant>
Now I'm really confused!

If we want to supply Ada programs compiled with GNAT (without source), we
need to beg for a copy of GNAT Pro from someone? Or what?

GNAT Pro users can supply anyone they want with the GNAT Pro tools
licensed under GMGPL and GPL?

Can users of the new GNAT GPL edition merge in old GMGPL
library code before they can supply their binaries to others
under a license of their choice?

This amplifies the kind of Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt that Ada already
suffers from.

Are there any precedents of library licenses being downgraded like
this in other languages?  I can't image gcc users writing in C++
putting up with this kind of change!

Will there be *any* compilers available for Ada 2005 suitable
for developers of free, closed source code?  Surely lack of
suitable (free or inexpensive) compilers for Ada projects
was *exactly* the problem GNAT was developed to solve?
Even open source, GPL-incompatible licenses can't be used
with GNAT GPL, except for internal projects :(

Is ACT serious about enforcing these new restrictions?
Do they have the lawyers ready to harrass transgressors?
It seems like a most unfriendly thing to do...

I think it is a serious trap for people hoping to use
gcc for Ada projects to find they cannot use Ada unless they
switch to a suitable license.

I hope ACT will give a detailed explanation of their rationale
for the change in terms, and explain the *all* options available
to software developers who are caught up by this change.

Does this change really bring ACT more benefit than the
negativity towards them and towards Ada that will result?
</rant>
-- 
Adrian




  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-09-15 11:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-09-13 13:50 GNAT GPL 2005 Edition Santiago Urueña
2005-09-13 14:09 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
2005-09-13 15:43 ` Britt Snodgrass
2005-09-14  4:31   ` jim hopper
2005-09-14  9:36   ` Alex R. Mosteo
2005-09-13 17:03 ` Jeffrey Carter
2005-09-13 23:33   ` David Trudgett
2005-09-14  0:00     ` Björn Persson
2005-09-14  0:47       ` Jeff Creem
2005-09-14  8:22         ` Martin Dowie
2005-09-14  6:54       ` David Trudgett
2005-09-18 16:45         ` Florian Weimer
2005-09-14 16:03       ` Jeffrey Carter
2005-09-14 17:03         ` Martin Dowie
2005-09-14 17:16           ` Alex R. Mosteo
2005-09-14 19:09             ` Marc A. Criley
2005-09-15 10:03               ` Alex R. Mosteo
2005-09-15 13:11                 ` Marc A. Criley
2005-09-16  5:34                   ` Simon Wright
2005-09-15 11:55       ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley [this message]
2005-09-16 12:50 ` Nasser Abbasi
2005-09-16 13:23   ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox