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: 103376,77a3432eb1460969 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:37:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:33:57 -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: License and Compiler Confusion References: <122asvvbd4aru87@corp.supernews.com> <2506371.QCYPu8xXuI@linux1.krischik.com> <1144200433.185338.279830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1144200433.185338.279830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> 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-zDc+jRlEXXjwl5nAy2RZx4koycNSdka4hK0xkYp1iY9PuiEmrKyUsw2hLaN9CoMPIFw/X89q6PY4Th2!3MDrcWYtsftSFH0pzhALsPTQQyg0q9u0FHSjUKAlT0PIVgQJPSEavZBC891W9leF4oy3YzhJ5vpF!w3c= 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: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3725 Date: 2006-04-04T22:33:57-04:00 List-Id: mamboking wrote: > I was wondering who is maintaining the runtime libraries? Is it the > gcc folks or AdaCore? Is it possible that there could ever be a fork > in the runtime libraries where something new is added to the GPL > version and can't be added to the GMGPL? > > Just curious. > > Kevin Hostelley > The driving force behind the compiler and run time libraries still is largely AdaCore even in the FSF tree though there is certainly some work that happens on Ada in the FSF tree that is not done by people working for AdaCore. (I am basing this on gcc developer list traffic and SVN/CVS checkin messages browsed informally over many months) Anything that gets added to the GPL version is by definition coming from AdaCore (since they are the ones that release the GPL version). So, if they create something and decide to not include it in the FSF tree then this could happen. It is also theoretically possible that at some point the FSF tree could change to pure GPL. Having said that, there has been zero traffic on the GCC developers list discussing any switch of the runtime license within that tree and it is certainly something that I would think would require steering committee approval. Not contributing patches, new files, features, etc to the FSF tree would of course not require approval from anyone. So, the short answer is yes it is possible that there could be a "fork" or other development approach where the two diverge. I would guess that AdaCore probably has done "enough" to prevent themselves from competing against themselves by not releasing official GMGPL AdaCore versions of GNAT. They made the business decision to move into the GCC tree because they thought it would add value to themselves and their customers. If something changes, they could step away from that. It is probably not worth speculating on if/when/why this might happen. If you go with a pure proprietary vendor for some product and they decide to "walk away" from it, you are totally stuck. At least if AdaCore, FSF or anyone "walks away" or closes the door on future GMGPL versions of Ada support in GCC, you or the community has the chance of keeping it somewhat alive