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: 103376,807fd6443e98152f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:10:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:08:41 -0400 From: Jeffrey Creem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Poll: Qt4Ada as alternative to GtkAda References: <44c9476d$0$7472$626a54ce@news.free.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171 X-Trace: sv3-EUD3QPluzxYwOefl67FG1Xi3zuKVGXo/ur5vclG/Pd4cpaHj3fEprzPFgcK5f3HZQ7mw+jXGteXikxD!aHpEyg3MHQfHiXHlLOnvZYthLpHk9wPXvpa02pQyiiAbotTwtUa29iPRiUgL584hDNZu3hBkhZ1Z!nBM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5992 Date: 2006-07-28T10:08:41-04:00 List-Id: Simon Clubley wrote: > In article , Preben Randhol writes: > >>michael bode 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.