Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[obyrneaustin]

I have a lot of successful cryptography that is written in Ada - 95 using a very ancient gnat 311.p compiler . I intend to update all of this now and use an ADA 2012 more modern compiler.

Questions:
 Is Ada-2012 the most recent compiler.
 Is John Barnes book on this topic the better one to use.
 Is it at all possible to get this compiler on a CD ROM. 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Adacrypt.

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[alby.gamper]

On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 3:42:55 PM UTC+10, obyrne...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a lot of successful cryptography that is written in Ada - 95 using a very ancient gnat 311.p compiler . I intend to update all of this now and use an ADA 2012 more modern compiler.
> 
> Questions:
>  Is Ada-2012 the most recent compiler.
>  Is John Barnes book on this topic the better one to use.
>  Is it at all possible to get this compiler on a CD ROM. 
> 
> Any advice would be appreciated.
> 
> Adacrypt.

Hi AdaCrypt

You did not mention what you OS is (or how your software is licensed). Their
are a few open source/community editions available, That may suit you, these
being.

- AdaCore's GNAT 2018 community edition (cant be used in commercial apps.)
(this supports windows x86/x64 , Linux x86/x64 (and I believe Mac?)

- MSYS2 (this supports windows x64, although if you are feeling keen, then
you could build a windows x86 target if needed. I believe that this can be used
in a commercial product ?)

- Simon Wright has a GNAT FSF MacOS build, same licensing as MSYS2 applies.

WRT John Barnes publications (ie Rational's). I find them very good at
describing the new features in each iteration/version of Ada.

You don't need to get the compiler on CD-Rom, just download from the following

- AdaCore's community edition is at https://www.adacore.com/download
- Msys2 - First install MSYS2 and then use pacman to install gnat
- macOS - https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada/files/GNAT_GCC%20Mac%20OS%20X/9.1.0/

Alex

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[obyrneaustin]

On Monday, 27 May 2019 11:30:20 UTC+1, alby....@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 3:42:55 PM UTC+10, obyrne...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have a lot of successful cryptography that is written in Ada - 95 using a very ancient gnat 311.p compiler . I intend to update all of this now and use an ADA 2012 more modern compiler.
> > 
> > Questions:
> >  Is Ada-2012 the most recent compiler.
> >  Is John Barnes book on this topic the better one to use.
> >  Is it at all possible to get this compiler on a CD ROM. 
> > 
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
> > 
> > Adacrypt.
> 
> Hi AdaCrypt
> 
> You did not mention what you OS is (or how your software is licensed). Their
> are a few open source/community editions available, That may suit you, these
> being.
> 
> - AdaCore's GNAT 2018 community edition (cant be used in commercial apps.)
> (this supports windows x86/x64 , Linux x86/x64 (and I believe Mac?)
> 
> - MSYS2 (this supports windows x64, although if you are feeling keen, then
> you could build a windows x86 target if needed. I believe that this can be used
> in a commercial product ?)
> 
> - Simon Wright has a GNAT FSF MacOS build, same licensing as MSYS2 applies.
> 
> WRT John Barnes publications (ie Rational's). I find them very good at
> describing the new features in each iteration/version of Ada.
> 
> You don't need to get the compiler on CD-Rom, just download from the following
> 
> - AdaCore's community edition is at https://www.adacore.com/download
> - Msys2 - First install MSYS2 and then use pacman to install gnat
> - macOS - https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada/files/GNAT_GCC%20Mac%20OS%20X/9.1.0/
> 
> Alex

Many Thanks Alex - I will download it as you suggest.

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Björn Lundin]

On 2019-05-27 12:30, alby.gamper@gmail.com wrote:
> - AdaCore's GNAT 2018 community edition (cant be used in commercial apps.)

Of course it can be used in commercial apps.
But it will be under GPL.
But you can still sell it, and sell support to it.

-- 
--
Björn

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Optikos]

On 2019-05-27 at 08:38, Björn Lundlin wrote:
> On 2019-05-27 12:30, alby....@gmail.com wrote: 
> > - AdaCore's GNAT 2018 community edition
> > (cant be used in commercial apps.) 
> 
> Of course it can be used in commercial apps.
> But it will be under GPL. 
> But you can still sell it, and sell support to it. 

But “[o]f course it can be used [by anyone else] in [their] commercial apps [too]. 
[Because its source will be freely available] it will be under GPL [for anyone to fork]. 
But [they] can still sell it [to compete with you directly], and [they] sell support to it [to compete with you directly].”

Hence why Alex was correctly indicating that GPL Community Edition forestalls most practical forms of commercial business activity by entirely prohibiting AdaCore-esque dual licensing (as well as prohibiting closed source) due to lack of the Runtime License Exception.

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Maciej Sobczak]

> Hence why Alex was correctly indicating that GPL Community Edition forestalls most practical forms of commercial business activity

I have an impression that nowadays "most forms of commercial business activity" involve setting up an account for accessing whatever on-line service.
This is why most apps today are free, anyway. In this context, GPL license on the app is not a problem at all.

No, I do not applaud the GPL licensing. I only state that the landscape of "commercial business activity" has significantly changed from what it was say two decades ago.

I also think that you are overestimating the willingness of customers to engage in further business activity of reproducing and re-selling what they have bought from you. This concept is being demonized since ever, but I don't think it has any bigger significance than a "traditional" counterfeiting.

No, I don't applaud GPL as a licensing scheme. I just don't consider it to be a showstopper.

> by entirely prohibiting AdaCore-esque dual licensing

Wrong. You can write your program (or a library) and sell it in the form of source code with whatever license you wish and allow your customer to compile it using whatever compiler they have. The compiler that you have used to verify (!) your product has no impact on the licensing of your source code. Thus, dual- or closed- licensing is still possible. Feel free to complete this scheme with any kind of NDA or other forms of legal agreements with your customers.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Björn Lundin]

On 2019-05-28 01:25, Optikos wrote:
> On 2019-05-27 at 08:38, Björn Lundlin wrote:
>> On 2019-05-27 12:30, alby....@gmail.com wrote: 
>>> - AdaCore's GNAT 2018 community edition
>>> (cant be used in commercial apps.) 
>>
>> Of course it can be used in commercial apps.
>> But it will be under GPL. 
>> But you can still sell it, and sell support to it. 
> 
> But “[o]f course it can be used [by anyone else] in [their] commercial apps [too]. 

Not really.
I need to provide my source to my _customers_ - which is far from
'anyone else'

If my customers does not know/like/want to program software they buy,
then there is no trouble

If they do want to fibble with the system, they likely need support.
Sell it to them

If they resell your software - well they can.

But by not targeting that kind of customers,
or providing business crucial types of software that
the customer use - but does not fiddle with - (which is the case in my
business) I see less of a problem.

So no, I still think it is wrong to state that the CE _cannot_ be used
in commercial apps.


-- 
--
Björn

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Björn Lundin]

On 2019-05-28 08:43, Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> I also think that you are overestimating the willingness of customers to engage in further business activity of reproducing and re-selling what they have bought from you. 


I fully agree with you here Maciej,
and especially in the quoted part.
To tweak bought software is extremely rare in my business. (that being
Warehouse management/control systems)

The systems are way too complex for a customer to willingly fiddle with,
at the expense of a whole site coming to a standstill by accident.

Most of our customers claim that stop time means at least $100_000 -
$200_000 per hour in losses.
They _highly_ prefer to order changes from the vendor and get
some guarantee from us.

-- 
--
Björn

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Optikos]

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> Optikos wrote:
> > Hence why Alex was correctly indicating that
> > GPL Community Edition forestalls most
> > practical forms of commercial business
> > activity by entirely prohibiting AdaCore-esque
> > dual licensing 
> 
> Wrong. You can write your program (or a
> library) and sell it in the form of source code
> with whatever license you wish

Certainly absolutely no one does that regarding software that is strictly GPLv3 without the Runtime Library Exception!

> Feel free to complete this scheme with any kind of NDA or other forms of legal
> agreements with your customers. 

Certainly absolutely no one does that regarding software that is strictly GPLv3 without the Runtime Library Exception!

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Maciej Sobczak]

> > Wrong. You can write your program (or a
> > library) and sell it in the form of source code
> > with whatever license you wish
> 
> Certainly absolutely no one does that regarding software that is strictly GPLv3 without the Runtime Library Exception!

Wrong. But let's go back a little to better understand the workflow.

1. You write some code. It can be a standalone app or a library.

2. You can put whatever license you wish on your source code.

3. You can deliver it (the source code!) to your users with that license.

Finished.

...

OK, so you think it might be a good idea to verify this code a little bit before selling it to your customers - you know, test it or at least check whether it compiles at all. So you add an additional points to the scheme above:

1a. You compile your code with whatever compiler you have.
1b. You run your tests or perform whatever other verification activities to make sure that your product has an expected quality level.

These two points have no impact on points 2. and 3. above.

I will agree that this scheme is not satisfactory for the case of applications distributed via App Stores, or for users who don't want to be involved in technical activities like compiling something on their own - this is understandable, and in such cases a turn-key product needs to be delivered. But it is a very satisfactory scheme for the case of libraries, which become included in this kind of workflow on the user side anyway.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Optikos]

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> Optikos wrote:
> > Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> > Optikos wrote:
> > > > Hence why Alex was correctly indicating
> > > > that GPL Community Edition forestalls
> > > > most practical forms of commercial
> > > > business activity 
> > >
> > > Wrong. You can write your program (or a 
> > > library) and sell it in the form of source 
> > > code with whatever license you wish 
> >
> > Certainly absolutely no one does that
> > regarding software that is strictly GPLv3
> > without the Runtime Library Exception! 
> 
> Wrong. But let's go back a little to better
> understand the workflow. 
> 
> 1. You write some code. It can be a standalone
> app or a library. 
> 
> 2. You can put whatever license you wish on
> your source code. 
> 
> 3. You can deliver it (the source code!) to your > users with that license. 
> 
> Finished. 

> OK, so you think it might be a good idea to
> verify this code a little bit before selling it to
> your customers - you know, test it or at least
> check whether it compiles at all. So you add an
> additional points to the scheme above: 
> 
> 1a. You compile your code with whatever
> compiler you have. 
> 1b. You run your tests or perform whatever
> other verification activities to make sure that
> your product has an expected quality level. 
> 
> These two points have no impact on points 2.
> and 3. above. 

Hypothetical “you” after hypothetical “you” and still more hypothetical “you” fictions.  Instead, please give actual names of extant actual projects or commercial products or companies that do as you say above:  receiving a pure-GPLv3 copy of upstream source code without the Runtime Library Exception then either dual licensing it and/or placing nondisclosure agreement (NDA) restrictions on downstream copies of that upstream-obtained GPLv3ed source code without Runtime Library Exception, which is the case that Alex & I are calling out as the sole topic of conversation here.

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Björn Lundin]

On 2019-05-29 16:28, Optikos wrote:

>receiving a pure-GPLv3 copy of upstream source code without the Runtime Library Exception then...

Where did this come from ?

* The author writes code
* That code IS NOT GPLd in ANY way

it becomes GPLd when SOMEONE links it with a GPLd runtime. Not before.

The author may test it locally with GPLd runtime.
That code/program is not for sale. It is for testing.
It is NOT distributed.

The author may sell that code under any license of choice

The customer needs to compile the code in order to get a system
The customer may then compile the code with a non-GPLd runtime => does
not change license.
OR
The customer may then compile the code with a GPLd runtime => does
change license. On the customers copy. Not on the authors copy of
source. And applicable only IF the customer wants to fiddle by his/her
own or resell it.

The 'the sole topic of conversation here.' is if you may/can produce
software commercially with AdaCore's CE editions. Nothing else.
And the answer is yes.
It is clumpsy - but possible.

(And no, I do not do it this way, my company is customer to AdaCore)
(And no, I do not like the way CE behaves, I think it should do as the
rest of gcc, have a non-GPLd runtime)


-- 
--
Björn

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Optikos]

Here:

> On 2019-05-29 16:28, Optikos wrote: 
> > receiving a pure-GPLv3 copy of upstream
> > source code without the Runtime Library
> > Exception then...
> 
> Where did this come from ? 

From the top of this very thread, of course:

On 2019-05-27 at 08:38, Björn Lundlin wrote: 
> On 2019-05-27 12:30, alby....@gmail.com wrote:
> > - AdaCore's GNAT 2018 community edition 
> > (cant be used in commercial apps.) 
> 
> Of course it can be used in commercial apps. 
> But it will be under GPL. 
> But you can still sell it, and sell support to it.

GNAT Community Edition is the upstream source code that is pure GPLv3 without the Runtime Library Exception.  This is 1 & only topic that we have all been discussing all along.

> * The author writes code 
> * That code IS NOT GPLd in ANY way.

Only if that author wrote GNAT Community Edition itself.  Otherwise that author-of-merely-an-app(-or-library) received the GNAT Community Edition as upstream derivative work of further upstream GPLv3 source code without the Runtime Library Exception, which causes the app (or library) to be GPLv3ed-wothout-RLE as well.

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Björn Lundin]

On 2019-05-29 18:27, Optikos wrote:
> Here:
> 
>> On 2019-05-29 16:28, Optikos wrote: 
>>> receiving a pure-GPLv3 copy of upstream
>>> source code without the Runtime Library
>>> Exception then...
>>
>> Where did this come from ? 
> 
> From the top of this very thread, of course:No. OP and reply by Alex did not mention that
OP's code was under GPL.
The statement was that you _cannot_ make commercial applications with
it. That statement is wrong.


> GNAT Community Edition is the upstream source code that is pure GPLv3 without the Runtime Library Exception.  This is 1 & only >topic that we have all been discussing all along.

No. Topic is can you make commercial applications using gnat CE.
YOU put in extra bits about runtime GPLd.
But that is not the topic.

Yes, and I say that the OP's source code will get GPL'd when he link and
sell it with CE. _Not before_. So he can select to sell source only,
with _any_ license.


>> * The author writes code 
>> * That code IS NOT GPLd in ANY way.
> 
> Only if that author wrote GNAT Community Edition itself.  Otherwise that author-of-merely-an-app(-or-library) received the GNAT Community Edition as upstream derivative work of further upstream GPLv3 source code without the Runtime Library Exception, which causes the app (or library) to be GPLv3ed-wothout-RLE as well.


Yes. If the author distributes or sells _binaries_, then your statement
is correct. The author then needs to provide the source.
Still - it does _not_ hinder in _any_ way to sell it - making commercial
applications.

And again -the topic is 'can be used in commercial apps' - or not.


As stated at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney


"""
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
(#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

    Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is
part of the definition of free software. Except in one special
situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one
exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must
accompany binary-only release.)
"""



-- 
--
Björn

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Simon Wright]

Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> writes:

> Yes, and I say that the OP's source code will get GPL'd when he link
> and sell it with CE. _Not before_. So he can select to sell source
> only, with _any_ license.

A bit misleading. OP's source code can have any licence they like, no
matter what compilation suite they use during development. But if it is
to form part of a commercial distribution including GPL'd code, OP's
licence has to be compatible[1] with GPL and the distribution itself has
to be made under the GPL.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Björn Lundin]

On 2019-05-29 21:32, Simon Wright wrote:
> Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Yes, and I say that the OP's source code will get GPL'd when he link
>> and sell it with CE. _Not before_. So he can select to sell source
>> only, with _any_ license.
> 
> A bit misleading. OP's source code can have any licence they like, no
> matter what compilation suite they use during development. 

Yes.

> But if it is
> to form part of a commercial distribution including GPL'd code, OP's
> licence has to be compatible[1] with GPL and the distribution itself has
> to be made under the GPL.

Yes. If OP'd code uses GPLd code, then of course OP's code will be under
GPL. But he can still sell it commercially.

But if OP's code is not using GPLd code, then his/her code is not GPLd
until he/she releases binaries created with CE.


> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
> 


-- 
--
Björn

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Simon Wright]

Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2019-05-29 21:32, Simon Wright wrote:

>> But if it is to form part of a commercial distribution including
>> GPL'd code, OP's licence has to be compatible[1] with GPL and the
>> distribution itself has to be made under the GPL.
>
> Yes. If OP'd code uses GPLd code, then of course OP's code will be
> under GPL.

Sorry, but no. OP could place their code in the public domain, the fact
it uses a GPL'd library doesn't affect that. And the compiler's RTS (s
long as OP only uses ARM-defined features) doesn't affect it either.

> But if OP's code is not using GPLd code, then his/her code is not GPLd
> until he/she releases binaries created with CE.

The licence terms that OP places on their code cannot be changed except
by OP actually changing them. If OP' licence is incompatible with the
GPL than any attempt to make a distribution including OP's code and
GPL'd code will be contrary to the GPL.

This doesn't affect you, or I, or a business, using OP's
incompatibly-licensed code *so long as we don't make a distribution*.

=============

I think we may be arguing about language differences here rather than
the actual effect of the GPL! I'm sure I'm as capable as the next person
of holding wrong opinions about the effect of the GPL, but I do want to
get the wording right.

>> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>> 

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Björn Lundin]

On 2019-05-30 09:32, Simon Wright wrote:

> I think we may be arguing about language differences here rather than
> the actual effect of the GPL! I'm sure I'm as capable as the next person
> of holding wrong opinions about the effect of the GPL, but I do want to
> get the wording right.
> 
Agreed.
It started out as a compiler question,
which then had remarks if it could be used commercially
which the had some counter-remarks.
And 1-2-3 the discussion turned into GPL discussions.
Like most net discussions, it lost focus after a couple of turns


--
Björn

Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler.

[Simon Wright]

Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2019-05-30 09:32, Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> I think we may be arguing about language differences here rather than
>> the actual effect of the GPL! I'm sure I'm as capable as the next person
>> of holding wrong opinions about the effect of the GPL, but I do want to
>> get the wording right.
>> 
> Agreed.
> It started out as a compiler question,
> which then had remarks if it could be used commercially
> which the had some counter-remarks.
> And 1-2-3 the discussion turned into GPL discussions.
> Like most net discussions, it lost focus after a couple of turns

Our version of Godwin's Law