Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda

[Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>]

Simon Clubley wrote:
> In article <mailman.8.1154082903.32700.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>, Preben Randhol <randhol+cla2@pvv.org> writes:
> 
>>michael bode <michael.bode@laserline.de> wrote on 28/07/2006 (12:30) :
>>
>>>But I think this is quite clear: gnat from FSF still has the linking
>>>exception. GCC-GNAT 4.1 is available for some Linux distributions
>>>(MacOS X?) and I think MinGW gnat 3.4.5 is available for Windows.
>>
>>So it means that what ACT contributes to FSF (gcc) is GMGPL, while what
>>they package themselves is GPL?
>>
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right. If you pull a FSF GCC distribution, with a FSF version
> number, from a FSF server, it's my understanding that the Ada RTL component
> is licensed under the GMGPL.
> 
> A theoretical concern that I had a few weeks ago was could ACT, at a later
> date, move the GNAT.* packages in the FSF distribution to been GPL only on
> the basis that they were not part of the Ada 95 standard, and hence, like
> GtkAda, ACT was free to do with them whatever they wanted to do ?
> 
> Simon.
> 


I would expect some discussion on the GCC group before such a move 
happens. For items in the actual FSF GCC tree, ACT has to assign 
copyright to the FSF. So, while they are always free to stop 
contributing, I don't think AdaCore by themselves can change the license 
terms on items pulled from the FSF tree.

Of course, the FSF could make a change like that. While AdaCore's 
actions are (hopefully) driven by profit motives, FSF's motives are 
simply trying to ensure an end state where software is "Free" (in a GPL 
sense). So they could certainly change future releases to pure GPL for 
their own reasons (and of course a proprietary vendor could change 
future license terms to require something unacceptable in future 
versions too). At least with open source and either very shallow pockets 
(lawsuit proof) or fairly deep pockets (laywer  up), one could branch 
from the last set of acceptable license terms...

In any case, on the original point of this thread, it is hard to 
understand why we would abandon GtkAda for Qt4Ada when Qt itself is GPL 
   without exception on some platforms.

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/downloads/qt/windows

So, how would the community be any better off? Yes you can buy a 
commercial license for it.. But of course you can by GtkAda from AdaCore 
too.

Now, having an alternate or additional QUI library support is not a bad 
thing (perhaps it is even a good thing) but I don't think QT really 
solves the license problems that most people are worrying about.