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: 103376,3e26dfa741e64e5f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available References: <1126875543.239666.325290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <3467d$432b0af1$49956f8$22115@ALLTEL.NET> <1127092850.124710.16350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Brian May Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:24:55 +1000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zWvIs+plhfv1AmA1FxWi3um4Ovk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au X-Trace: news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com 1127129075 202.173.153.89 (19 Sep 2005 21:24:35 +1000) X-Complaints-To: abuse@pipenetworks.com X-Abuse-Info: Please forward all headers to enable your complaint to be properly processed. Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.xtra.co.nz!news-south.connect.com.au!duster.adelaide.on.net!news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4896 Date: 2005-09-19T21:24:55+10:00 List-Id: >>>>> "chrismiller677" == chrismiller677 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