Re: Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:53:59 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

<various arguments cut>

I think the following aren't in your list:

The FUD argument: by having an unusal and restrictive licence for
the users' executables, people will be forced to read and understand
the detail of the licenses, consult lawyers, perhaps change their
distribution plans, now or in the future.  The GMGPL versions
are simple, creating no fear, uncertainty or doubt over their use.
Choosing the GNAT GPL 2005 incurs extra risk, cost and effort to comply.

The damage to the GMGPL versions:  if distributions and users move
to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the GMGPL
versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded.  This is likely
to be a major disbenefit for those needing GMGPL versions.

Supports ACT policy of withdrawing Ada technologies from free use:
makes it more likely that GtkAda, GLADE, AWS etc will be completely
unavailable in fully free (GMGPL) form, pushing the costs of using
Ada well beyond those of comparable technologies. ($$$$$, instead of <$$)

It's not what users expect: users of free compilers expect to be able to
use their compiled code in any manner they see fit.  This is true of
all of the mainstream languages (C, C++, etc).  The surprise aspect
focuses attention away from the benefits of Ada, and may also result in
accidental violations of the licence.
--
I think it is likely that the situation will worsen rapidly over the
next few years, with the effect that there will be *no* fully free
Ada 2005 compiler and *no* fully free GtkAda, GLADE, AWS, ASIS, Florist
either. The benefit (if any) to ACT will be negligable, but the disbenefit
to Ada and the user community will be significant.  Already it is a
challenge to obtain a complete suite of tools that isn't seriously
obsolescent :(

A quick check of Gtk and other Gtk bindings find C++, C#, etc all are
fully free (so just using them places no additional restrictions
on the executable).  Ceasing development of the unrestricted Ada
bindings just puts Ada further out on a limb as a weird,
impracticable or expensive option. People don't expect free
language interface to a free (LGPL) library to result in legally
encumbered binaries.

How much would you have to pay ACT to make regular public releases of
GNAT with libraries under the GMGPL style licensing?  Even just every
two years would be sufficient.  Logically, it needn't cost more than
the cost of the work involved plus profit margin plus any expected
loss of profit by it being made available.  Couldn't a sponsor be found?
The DoD invested huge amounts in the past.  Sponsoring fully free
releases of GNAT would be one of the best ways of retaining and
enhancing the value of their investment.

Unfortunately, the issue will be constantly with us until current,
fully free versions of the software are available.  I hope this will
not be too long.
-- 
Adrian