* FSF libgnat @ 2005-10-18 14:22 Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-10-18 19:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-10-18 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Hello ev'ryone! Can anyone tell me, what are the condition for using FSF version of libgnat? Does linking against it requires providing the sourses of the "based-on" project? One more question: which versions of libgnat support tasking and which not? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 14:22 FSF libgnat Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-10-18 19:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-18 20:49 ` Björn Persson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-18 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Stanislav Tsekhmistroh <stas@kometalab.com.ua> writes: > Can anyone tell me, what are the condition for using FSF version of > libgnat? Does linking against it requires providing the sourses of > the "based-on" project? Off the top of my head, the conditions are: - use the GCC from the FSF that the libgnat is part of; i.e. you cannot (without a lot of work) use the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition with libgnat from the FSF. You can choose either GCC 3.4.4 (more stable) or GCC 4.0.2 (more features). Avoid GCC 3.3.6 (Ada is buggy). - distribute the sources to libgnat, or point people to these sources, with your program. If you modify libgnat, you must publish the modified sources of libgnat. - you can choose the license for your program, you don't have to distribute the sources of your program. > One more question: which versions of libgnat support tasking and > which not? All of them, except GCC 3.4.4 on powerpc. HTH -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 19:02 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-18 20:49 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-18 21:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-10-18 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Stanislav Tsekhmistroh <stas@kometalab.com.ua> writes: >>Can anyone tell me, what are the condition for using FSF version of >>libgnat? > > - distribute the sources to libgnat, or point people to these sources, > with your program. I *think* you only need to provide the sources if you distribute Libgnat as such. If you distribute a program that merely uses Libgnat, then I think you don't have to provide any sources, because of the special exception. > If you modify libgnat, you must publish the > modified sources of libgnat. Unless you only use the modified Libgnat "internally" � within your company or similar. -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 20:49 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-10-18 21:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-18 21:57 ` Stefan Bellon ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-18 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Björn Persson <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes: > Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> Stanislav Tsekhmistroh <stas@kometalab.com.ua> writes: >>>Can anyone tell me, what are the condition for using FSF version of >>>libgnat? >> - distribute the sources to libgnat, or point people to these >> sources, with your program. > > I *think* you only need to provide the sources if you distribute > Libgnat as such. If you distribute a program that merely uses > Libgnat, then I think you don't have to provide any sources, because > of the special exception. Linking libgnat into your program, whether statically or dynamically, causes parts of it to be incorporated into your program (and, indeed, causes your program to be a "work based on" libgnat, in GPL parlance). Your program does not have to be GPL (by special permission), but libgnat keeps its license, and that license requires that you provide or offer to provide the sources of libgnat. >> If you modify libgnat, you must publish the modified sources of >> libgnat. I'd like to rephrase this: you don't have to publish anything; but if you distribute your program in binary form to person A, then you must also give the source code of libgnat to person A, even if you modified this source code. You don't have to post the modified sources to a web site if you don't want to. > Unless you only use the modified Libgnat "internally" within your > company or similar. Correct. The license only applies if you distribute your program. But I think that the OP was interested in conditions that apply when distributing his program. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 21:33 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-18 21:57 ` Stefan Bellon 2005-10-18 22:37 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 12:18 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Stefan Bellon @ 2005-10-18 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > >> If you modify libgnat, you must publish the modified sources of > >> libgnat. > > I'd like to rephrase this: you don't have to publish anything; but if > you distribute your program in binary form to person A, then you must > also give the source code of libgnat to person A, even if you modified > this source code. I'd like to rephrase it again: This only applies if person A is outside your company. There's an "internal distribution" clause. You only have to provide the source if you made it "public". Distributing it "internally" is ok: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic -- Dipl.-Inf. Stefan Bellon Bauhaus Software Technologies | TTI GmbH TGZ Softwareanalysen c/o ISTE Tel.: +49 711 78 16 221 | Universitätsstraße 38 Fax.: +49 711 78 16 380 | 70569 Stuttgart ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 21:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-18 21:57 ` Stefan Bellon @ 2005-10-18 22:37 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 4:59 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-25 20:15 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-19 12:18 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-10-18 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Linking libgnat into your program, whether statically or dynamically, > causes parts of it to be incorporated into your program (and, indeed, > causes your program to be a "work based on" libgnat, in GPL parlance). > Your program does not have to be GPL (by special permission), but > libgnat keeps its license, and that license requires that you provide > or offer to provide the sources of libgnat. In other words, you're saying that different parts of the same executable file will be covered by different licenses. Now *that* is messy! Let's look at the exception: "As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Public License." The wording seems to assume that the GPL would either cover the whole executable or none of it, but according to you it should be read as "...does not cause the *entire* executable to be covered by the GPL – just parts of it." So what happens when GMGPL code and code with a typical proprietary license is combined into a single file? The GMGPL says users are allowed to redistribute the file. The proprietary license says they're not. Are they only allowed to distribute parts of it? How do they know which parts? And who would want assorted shards of machine code anyway? -- Björn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 22:37 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-10-19 4:59 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-25 20:15 ` Samuel Tardieu 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-19 4:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Björn Persson wrote: > > In other words, you're saying that different parts of the same > executable file will be covered by different licenses. Now *that* is messy! It would be if it were correct, but it is not. > Let's look at the exception: > > "As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this > unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, > this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be > covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not > however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be > covered by the GNU Public License." > > The wording seems to assume that the GPL would either cover the whole > executable or none of it, but according to you it should be read as > "...does not cause the *entire* executable to be covered by the GPL – > just parts of it." Either the executable falls under the GPL, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you don't have to distribute any source code. Since the GMGPL doesn't cause the executable to fall under the GPL, it follows that the use of GMGPL source does not require the distribution of source code. -- Jeff Carter "I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member." Annie Hall 41 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 22:37 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 4:59 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2005-10-25 20:15 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 21:17 ` Björn Persson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Bj�rn" == Bj�rn Persson <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes: Bj�rn> In other words, you're saying that different parts of the same Bj�rn> executable file will be covered by different licenses. Now Bj�rn> *that* is messy! It is not messy, it is quite a common situation. When you develop proprietary software and use off-the-shelf components, each one comes with its own license. When you develop for Microsoft Windows using Microsoft toolkits for example, those toolkits have their license which is likely to differ from the one you choose for your own code. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-25 20:15 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 21:17 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-25 21:43 ` Samuel Tardieu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-10-25 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: > When you develop for Microsoft Windows using > Microsoft toolkits for example, those toolkits have their license > which is likely to differ from the one you choose for your own code. I don't have any of Microsoft's toolkits so I can't look at their licenses. What license terms do they impose on the binaries you make and distribute? -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-25 21:17 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-10-25 21:43 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 23:12 ` Randy Brukardt 2005-10-25 23:49 ` Björn Persson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Bj�rn" == Bj�rn Persson <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes: Bj�rn> I don't have any of Microsoft's toolkits so I can't look at Bj�rn> their licenses. What license terms do they impose on the Bj�rn> binaries you make and distribute? I am not a Microsoft user but a quick look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/eula.aspx reads, for example: (best parts reproduced but others are interesting too) "3.1 If you are authorized and choose to redistribute Sample Code or Redistributable Code (collectively, the "Redistributables") as described in Section 2, you agree: [...] (iii) to distribute the Licensee Software containing the Redistributables pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be "break-the-seal", "click-wrap" or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA; [...] (v) to display your own valid copyright notice which shall be sufficient to protect Microsoft's copyright in the Software; [...] (vii) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Licensee Software;" In particular, (iii) imposes heavy constraints on the license you can choose for your own software. For example, you may not authorize decompilation of your software, even if you indicate the addresses corresponding to your code (to prevent Microsoft code from being decompiled), because your whole executable must have terms as least as protective as the Microsoft components you use. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-25 21:43 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2005-10-25 23:12 ` Randy Brukardt 2005-10-25 23:49 ` Björn Persson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2005-10-25 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw) "Samuel Tardieu" <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote in message news:87slup5l30.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net... ... > In particular, (iii) imposes heavy constraints on the license you can > choose for your own software. For example, you may not authorize > decompilation of your software, even if you indicate the addresses > corresponding to your code (to prevent Microsoft code from being > decompiled), because your whole executable must have terms as least as > protective as the Microsoft components you use. So far as I know, "redistributables" are various Microsoft DLLs that you can include with your programs. It's never necessary to include these (most Windows systems have the ones you need); we don't include any of them with Janus/Ada for instance, and even using Claw it's unlikely that you'd need anything not included with all versions of Windows. I don't recall there being any separate runtime license (although I haven't read any recent licenses for this information). But I'm not a lawyer... Randy Brukardt. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-25 21:43 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 23:12 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2005-10-25 23:49 ` Björn Persson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-10-25 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu wrote: > In particular, (iii) imposes heavy constraints on the license you can > choose for your own software. For example, you may not authorize > decompilation of your software, even if you indicate the addresses > corresponding to your code (to prevent Microsoft code from being > decompiled), because your whole executable must have terms as least as > protective as the Microsoft components you use. I see. That's quite similar to how a GPL library dictates the license of binaries with that library linked in. I don't see that different licenses will apply to different parts of the same file, as Ludovic seemed to say happens with the GMGPL. As you write yourself: "your whole executable". In fact, if they *had* allowed you to permit decompilation of your own parts of the executable but not of Microsoft's parts, *then* there would have been different licenses on different parts of the file. Instead, they let you put your own license on the whole file, but require that your license contain all of their restrictions. -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-18 21:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-18 21:57 ` Stefan Bellon 2005-10-18 22:37 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-10-19 12:18 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-10-19 17:41 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 18:30 ` GNAT in Debian, heads up (was: FSF libgnat) Ludovic Brenta 2 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-10-19 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:33:05 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Björn Persson <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes: >> Ludovic Brenta wrote: >>> Stanislav Tsekhmistroh <stas@kometalab.com.ua> writes: >>>>Can anyone tell me, what are the condition for using FSF version of >>>>libgnat? >>> - distribute the sources to libgnat, or point people to these >>> sources, with your program. >> >> I *think* you only need to provide the sources if you distribute >> Libgnat as such. If you distribute a program that merely uses >> Libgnat, then I think you don't have to provide any sources, because >> of the special exception. > > Linking libgnat into your program, whether statically or dynamically, > causes parts of it to be incorporated into your program (and, indeed, > causes your program to be a "work based on" libgnat, in GPL parlance). > Your program does not have to be GPL (by special permission), but > libgnat keeps its license, and that license requires that you provide > or offer to provide the sources of libgnat. I.e. conditions for using FSF libgnat (by using I mean dynamic linking against it) are the same as for using ACT libgnat 3.15p, right? > >>> If you modify libgnat, you must publish the modified sources of >>> libgnat. It's quite clear :-) Thank you! PS: 2 Ludovic : What are the plans for GNAT in Debian? What is the preference - to fix/develop/package FSF GNAT or ACT GNAT 3.15p? And what help is needed most of all? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: FSF libgnat 2005-10-19 12:18 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-10-19 17:41 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 18:30 ` GNAT in Debian, heads up (was: FSF libgnat) Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2005-10-19 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Stanislav Tsekhmistroh wrote: > I.e. conditions for using FSF libgnat (by using I mean dynamic linking > against it) are the same as for using ACT libgnat 3.15p, right? Yes. Both are GMGPL – the Gnat Modified General Public License. -- Björn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* GNAT in Debian, heads up (was: FSF libgnat) 2005-10-19 12:18 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-10-19 17:41 ` Björn Persson @ 2005-10-19 18:30 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-19 18:54 ` GNAT in Debian, heads up Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-19 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Stanislav Tsekhmistroh <stas@kometalab.com.ua> writes: > PS: 2 Ludovic : > What are the plans for GNAT in Debian? > What is the preference - to fix/develop/package FSF GNAT or ACT > GNAT 3.15p? And what help is needed most of all? I don't know if you followed the very long thread where a vote took place, last month, about the next Ada compiler in Debian. See [1] for a summary of the votes and the various arguments that were voiced. There have been other messages since then but I still think that message captures the gist of the debate. [1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/8d1b6d93ee815f87 My plan is to transition to GCC 4.1. The release branch will be created by the FSF in the next few weeks, and I anticipate that a package will appear soon thereafter in Debian's unstable or experimental distribution. I will start the transition from there, probably in November this year. In the mean time, I'm playing with GNAT 3.15p and breaking things :) I've modified the build process so that certain parts of the compiler are exposed in a shared library. These parts make up the project manager, and the Ada units that are necessary for the project manager. The library, which I called "libgnatprj", allows to build project-aware tools by reusing GNAT's internal code. One such tool is AdaBrowse, which gave me the idea in the first place. A second change which I'm experimenting with is to change the GNAT_Version_String (declared in gnatvsn.ads, and displayed by "gnatmake -v") to reflect the Debian version number. My intention is to allow ASIS and GLADE to use this shared version string, instead of providing their own (they both contain a copy of parts of GNAT, and I'd like to stop that so that they can benefit from bug fixes made in GNAT). Another reason for doing this is that the GCC packages (gnat-3.4, gnat-4.0) also do that. I've just discovered that changing the GNAT_Version_String with every Debian release (e.g. "Debian 3.15p-14") was a bad idea, because GNAT keeps the CRC of the source (gnatvsn.ads) in the corresponding library information file (gnatvsn.ali). And if the CRC changes, then everything that depends on gnatvsn.ads must be recompiled. The latest upload is currently gnat 3.15p-16 and it breaks ASIS, GLADE and GPS (they can still run, but GLADE and GPS fail to build from source). A second problem I'll tackle in the short term is that libgnatprj contains some files under GMGPL (e.g. gnatvsn.ads) and other files under GPL (e.g. the project manager). I'll want to split that in two libraries. I want to port these changes to gnat-4.1 when I start doing the transition. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT in Debian, heads up 2005-10-19 18:30 ` GNAT in Debian, heads up (was: FSF libgnat) Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-19 18:54 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-20 11:08 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-19 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) I would like to add: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Stanislav Tsekhmistroh <stas@kometalab.com.ua> writes: >> What is the preference - to fix/develop/package FSF GNAT or ACT >> GNAT 3.15p? It depends on your goals. If you just want to write Ada software, I recommend using Debian Sarge and gnat 3.15p-12. You will have the full complement of tools and libraries available to you, and no "moving target" problem for another 14 months at least. If you want to work on the Debian packages for the next release of Debian, you are most welcome; see below. >> And what help is needed most of all? Since I'm planning to start transitioning to GCC 4.1 in a month or so, now would be a good time to learn the internals of how the gcc-4.0 and gcc-snapshot packages are built. The build scripts are fairly complex, because they have to take care of 8 languages, 12 platforms, and hundreds of patches. Later, I will need help with: * porting relevant patches to gnat-4.1 (from gnat): symbolic tracebacks, bug fixes, libgnatprj, etc; * supporting biarch where it makes sense (especially powerpc64 and amd64) * building gnat-gps 3.0 * porting asis and glade to gnat-4.1 * rebuilding all other packages with the new compiler in that order. This will take several months to achieve. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT in Debian, heads up 2005-10-19 18:54 ` GNAT in Debian, heads up Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-10-20 11:08 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-10-20 14:17 ` Marc A. Criley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-10-20 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:54:58 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > It depends on your goals. If you just want to write Ada software, I > recommend using Debian Sarge and gnat 3.15p-12. You will have the > full complement of tools and libraries available to you, and no > "moving target" problem for another 14 months at least. If you want > to work on the Debian packages for the next release of Debian, you are > most welcome; see below. Since I am relatively new to Ada, my intention is to keep investigating GNAT and using it in my new projects. (Because I have seen all important advantages of Ada in my field: my activity is industrial automation.) While I keep moving on, I'll dig the GNAT sources and try to be usefull. The situation is like that: I understand that I need GNAT, but since the ACT rule the GNAT (at least by this moment :-)), and they don't even stoop to answer my email messages, I don't see other way than to take what we have and make all my best. Btw, my company is precisely in the category that "is out of the ACT scope". > >>> And what help is needed most of all? > > Since I'm planning to start transitioning to GCC 4.1 in a month or so, > now would be a good time to learn the internals of how the gcc-4.0 and > gcc-snapshot packages are built. The build scripts are fairly > complex, because they have to take care of 8 languages, 12 platforms, > and hundreds of patches. Later, I will need help with: > > * porting relevant patches to gnat-4.1 (from gnat): symbolic tracebacks, > bug fixes, libgnatprj, etc; > > * supporting biarch where it makes sense (especially powerpc64 and > amd64) > > * building gnat-gps 3.0 > > * porting asis and glade to gnat-4.1 > > * rebuilding all other packages with the new compiler > > in that order. This will take several months to achieve. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT in Debian, heads up 2005-10-20 11:08 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh @ 2005-10-20 14:17 ` Marc A. Criley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2005-10-20 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Stanislav Tsekhmistroh wrote: > The situation is like that: > I understand that I need GNAT, but since the ACT rule the GNAT > (at least by this moment :-)), and they don't even stoop to answer my > email messages, I don't see other way than to take what we have and make > all my best. Btw, my company is precisely in the category that "is out of > the ACT scope". Well, AdaCore is a business, and their business model centers on providing high-end support to their paying customers. (And my past experience as a supported customer has been that their support is indeed among the industry's best.) So, if you're requesting technical information or support, and you're not a paying customer, you're just not going to get much attention. That said, they do accept bug reports from anyone and will pay attention to them, although again, if it's not a bug affecting any of their paying customers it likely won't be high on the priority list. (Although I once reported a bug/deficiency while not a paying customer and was surprised to almost immediately get questioned about it, so bug reports from unsupported users _are_ reviewed.) Anywho... There's tons of expertise using GNAT here and in the comp.lang.ada archives just waiting to be tapped. -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-10-25 23:49 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-10-18 14:22 FSF libgnat Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-10-18 19:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-18 20:49 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-18 21:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-18 21:57 ` Stefan Bellon 2005-10-18 22:37 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 4:59 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2005-10-25 20:15 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 21:17 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-25 21:43 ` Samuel Tardieu 2005-10-25 23:12 ` Randy Brukardt 2005-10-25 23:49 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 12:18 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-10-19 17:41 ` Björn Persson 2005-10-19 18:30 ` GNAT in Debian, heads up (was: FSF libgnat) Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-19 18:54 ` GNAT in Debian, heads up Ludovic Brenta 2005-10-20 11:08 ` Stanislav Tsekhmistroh 2005-10-20 14:17 ` Marc A. Criley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox