Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available

[Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>]

>>>>> "chrismiller677" == chrismiller677  <chrismiller677@hotmail.com> writes:

    chrismiller677> The situation where there are multiple licences,
    chrismiller677> created by multiple companies or organisations is
    chrismiller677> an unstainable mess. What, I believe, AdaCore have
    chrismiller677> done is to say that they are not in the business
    chrismiller677> of creating the "free software" rules and that
    chrismiller677> they will simply release Gnat under what ever
    chrismiller677> rules the FSF comes up with. I believe this is a
    chrismiller677> correct long term decision.

No, the FSF have two licenses that a relevant, the LGPL and the GPL.

The FSF license the C runtime libraries using the LGPL. I think
something similar has been done for the C++ runtime libraries too.

I fail to see why the Ada runtime library needs to be different.

So I don't think this is an issue, as the FSF has already found a
solution... Otherwise we would be having the same debate about gcc and
g++ on other forums.

Maybe the LGPL is "non-preferred", however I think this is a special
case situation that justifies it - not for the compiler, just the
run-time library.

The situation is also stupid, because I can write my own open source
software with the BSD license. I can distribute the source code under
the BSD license. However, as soon as I compile it using the compiler
in question, according to some interpretations of the GPL, I can not
distribute the resultant binary file. Instead I am forced to
distribute only the source code. This means end users must work out
how to compile my code. This in turn could give Ada a bad reputation;
eg.  "No don't use Brian's package - you have to install that stupid
Ada compiler to compile it - use this other package instead - it may
not be as good but at least you don't have to compile it."

Does restricting my from distributing binary files help AdaCore in
anyway?

I don't think so. It is still open source. I don't think the fact
somebody could later turn it into a closed source project at a latter
date is an issue (actually, I have been told by a lawyer it is legally
possible to completely revoke a license, including the GPL, on
distributed no-cost software, given notice, so this difference between
BSD and GPL may not actually exist).

Does it help promote the GPL in anyway?

No, the GPL is already my preferred license for projects I create, if
I use another license it would be because I had no option (e.g. I am
not the copyright owner).
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>