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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,5efeb51ce0b50b63 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!62.253.162.218.MISMATCH!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!newspeer1-win.ntli.net!newsfe4-gui.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1126619435.487674.77550@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:55:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.4.127.115 X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport X-Trace: newsfe4-gui.ntli.net 1126785336 80.4.127.115 (Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:55:36 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:55:36 BST Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4701 Date: 2005-09-15T11:55:36+00:00 List-Id: 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. 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? -- Adrian