Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available

["Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:44:16 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

...
> Please take into account that recent versions of ASIS and GLADE are
> only available under GPL, not GMGPL.  The same is true for AWS,
> GtkAda, XML/Ada etc. but is less of a concern because these libraries
> are not tightly coupled with the compiler.
> 
> Please cast a vote on this forum.  This is the time to influence the
> next version of Debian.

The versions of GLADE and GtkAda I use are GMGPL.
GLADE is (C) 1996-2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc
GtkAda is (C) 1998-1999 Briot, Brobecker and Charlet 

I am concerned that tools like this will no longer
be maintained for unrestricted use.

Does the FSF really want to change their code so that
you can't use GLADE in closed source applications?
Perhaps the recent versions are not derived works of the
FSF version?

I oppose Debian moving to any Ada compiler which generates
code that has serious license restrictions.

Doesn't the gcc project prohibit inclusion of sources that place
restrictions on the generated code?  Surely this is no
different to code fragments from any of the gcc back-ends - authors
could easily claim copyright on those sequences and that
compiled code is a "derived work" that they assert rights over.
But this would not be compatible with the aims of gcc.
Why should GNAT be any different?

We seem to be losing coherence rapidly with Ada compilers
and libraries.  ACT should be unifying and strengthening
Ada as a viable language for modern programming, not
forcing code forks, fragmentation and FUD.  If the only
complete, freely licensable tool chain is only available
in obsolete/obsolescent versions, surely their market
will dwindle, not expand?  These latest developments seem
to be some of the worst possible things they could do
to harm Ada's image and uptake.

I think I should have sent the following rant to this thread,
not the other...

<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