* can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... @ 2006-06-19 1:05 klobert 2006-06-19 8:32 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-19 10:16 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: klobert @ 2006-06-19 1:05 UTC (permalink / raw) I am looking for some clear information related with ada compiler licensing. Is it possible to build commercial applications without releasing the source code using latest "libre" version of gnat ? Or is it necessary to buy a $15K commercial license from adacore in order to build commercial applications ? What's the difference in license between gcc ada and gnat ? What's the difference in functionality between these: (gnat, gccada3.44, gccada4.1.0 ? ) What happened to the Eclat compiler ? Is thee any ada compiler under BSD license ? Thanks for your help. Klobert. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-19 1:05 can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions klobert @ 2006-06-19 8:32 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-19 9:24 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-19 10:29 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-19 10:16 ` Stephen Leake 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-19 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) klobert wrote: > I am looking for some clear information related with ada compiler > licensing. > Is it possible to build commercial applications without releasing the > source code using latest "libre" version of gnat ? Yes. If by commercial you mean selling just the binaries to third parties, no. > Or is it necessary to buy a $15K commercial license from adacore in > order to build commercial applications ? No. You have a number of compiler vendors offering tools. However, if you want to use GNAT, and sell just binaries to third parties, then likely yes. > What's the difference in license between gcc ada and gnat ? Many differences. FSF GNAT is based on a more recent GCC. Chances are that AdaCore's GCC is based on GCC 3.4.6 in many cases, and more intensely maintained. > What's the difference in functionality between these: > (gnat, gccada3.44, gccada4.1.0 ? ) Bug fixes, ASIS (yes, no, some), varying levels of support for the new Ada 2005 features, and more. > What happened to the Eclat compiler ? Don't know. > Is thee any ada compiler under BSD license ? Not aware of one. HTH, Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-19 8:32 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-19 9:24 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-19 10:29 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-19 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) There is more information on these pages: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#The-variants-of-GNAT As Georg hinted, do not confuse "commercial" and "proprietary". These are orthogonal concepts; you can make your software: - commercial (costs money) and proprietary (e.g. Oracle) - non-commercial (i.e. no cost) and proprietary (e.g. Java, Adobe Reader) - commercial (costs money) and free as in freedom (e.g. GNAT Pro, MySQL, Qt, Sourcery G++) - non-commercial (no-cost) and free as in freedom (e.g. GCC, Apache). If your software is free as in freedom (the latter two cases), you can use GNAT GPL Edition. Otherwise, you must use either GNAT Pro or GCC from the Free Software Foundation. MySQL and Qt have similar arrangements. You can also make your software proprietary but distribute it in source-only form, perhaps under non-disclosure agreement. You would then require your customers to compile your sources for themselves, using whichever compiler thay have at hand. In that case, you can use GNAT GPL Edition to develop and test your program: since you are not distributing binaries, the licensing terms of the GNAT run-time library do not affect your software. You can also make commercial, proprietary software that you do not distribute at all to your customers; instead, you make it available as a web service, and require your customers to pay a subscription fee for the use of the service. In this model, you can use GNAT GPL Edition, since you are not distributing your software at all. There may be other models that have not yet been discussed on this list. I think this subject matter is worth a FAQ or a Wiki page somewhere, if such does not already exist. HTH -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-19 8:32 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-19 9:24 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-19 10:29 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-19 11:39 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > klobert wrote: > > I am looking for some clear information related with ada compiler > > licensing. > > Is it possible to build commercial applications without releasing the > > source code using latest "libre" version of gnat ? > > Yes. > If by commercial you mean selling just the binaries to third parties, no. > > > What's the difference in functionality between these: > > (gnat, gccada3.44, gccada4.1.0 ? ) > > Bug fixes, ASIS (yes, no, some), varying levels of support for the new > Ada 2005 features, and more. I'd like to add, that AFAIS nothing forbids you to do development with gnat-2006 (using the full ASIS support for debugging and perhaps generating source code and then compile the project with gccada and ship these binaries closed source style to the customer. > > Is thee any ada compiler under BSD license ? > > Not aware of one. And its actually not necessary: The Toolchain might be under GPL as it likes (it's OK in my book that nobody can create a closed source tool from the compiler), but what is annoying is if the GPL infects any tool compiled _with_ the compiler. This is less freedom not more. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-19 10:29 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-19 11:39 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-22 23:08 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-19 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes : > what is annoying is if the GPL infects any > tool compiled _with_ the compiler. This is less freedom not more. Less freedom for you, but more for your users. The GPL protects users from programmers who would restrict their freedom. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-19 11:39 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-22 23:08 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-23 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-22 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Less freedom for you, but more for your users. The GPL protects users > from programmers who would restrict their freedom. But the application programmer *is* the user of the compiler. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-22 23:08 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-23 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-23 17:24 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-23 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrotes : > Ludovic Brenta writes: > > > Less freedom for you, but more for your users. The GPL protects users > > from programmers who would restrict their freedom. > > But the application programmer *is* the user of the compiler. The question was not about the compiler, it was about the run-time library. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-23 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-23 17:24 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 0:08 ` Jeffrey Creem ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-23 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: >> But the application programmer *is* the user of the compiler. > > The question was not about the compiler, it was about the run-time > library. I thought the problem arises if one instantiates generics. This is usage of an Ada compiler. I also thought the run-time could be linked dynamically and thus be distributed separate. For now I'm fine with gnat 3.15p, but maybe that also doesn't work for me licence-wise as... ...in an related thread there is a discussion of the license for GtkAda. I just looked at some source files of the CVS Version (https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/GtkAda/) and they still read: ... -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from -- ... If this means you need a written statement signed by Robert Dewar to be sure you won't be sued by Adacore if you use it in a CSS project, then probably I better read that Java book on my bookshelf. (I'm not the one who decides what licence my code has, I'm only the one who decides what language it is written in.) -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-23 17:24 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 0:08 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 10:01 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 11:16 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 11:12 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 12:49 ` gshapovalov 2 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Creem @ 2006-06-24 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrote: > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > >>>But the application programmer *is* the user of the compiler. >> >>The question was not about the compiler, it was about the run-time >>library. > > > I thought the problem arises if one instantiates generics. This is > usage of an Ada compiler. I also thought the run-time could be linked > dynamically and thus be distributed separate. For now I'm fine with > gnat 3.15p, but maybe that also doesn't work for me licence-wise as... > This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the GPL. You are thinking that some portion of the runtime is LGPL. It is not. It is GPL with a linking/generics exception (in the case of old GNAT <=3.15 releases and FSF derived GCC releases) which is actually slightly more permissive than the LGPL. The runtime is "GPL" in the case of the Libre/adacore GPL releases. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 0:08 ` Jeffrey Creem @ 2006-06-24 10:01 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 11:32 ` M E Leypold ` (2 more replies) 2006-06-24 11:16 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 3 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it > really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the > GPL. If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily create a 'derived work' of Microsoft Windows(TM) by writing any program that uses any Windows DLL. And you don't have to stick Microsoft's EULA to it, you can even licence it under GPL. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 10:01 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 11:32 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 12:04 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 11:41 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 12:45 ` Marius Amado-Alves 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > > > This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it > > really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the > > GPL. > > If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that > Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily You're completely right in that respect. That is exactly why a number of people advocate the following: - Use of GPL for tools and applications (that protects the community from someone borgifying (embrace and extend) these _programs_ and putting out incompatible "value added" versions (which would result in a vendor lockin). - Use of LGPL, GMGPL or BSD license for libraries. The last point is often contested, but one might notice that history shows that environements (speak libraries) which absolutely preclude the development of closed source software for certain purposes (think about an NDA on methods and manufacturing processes your customer wants you to sign), have a problem to build a non-hobbyist community. Many of this projects/environments have changed the license to a more liberal one. Some examples: - KDE (Qt) - Ocaml - Minix :-) On the other side GPL has become a weapon of marketing in some hands: I.E. MySQL not only put the client runtime unter GPL after, I think, version 3) but (rumor has it) also has a most peculiar interpretation of the GPL, namely that using MySQL specific syntax in one of your (scripted) programs already constitutes linking. I leave it to the reader to judge how much of this applies to the recent license changes surrounding Gnat and the libraries (mostly the libraries, since there is FSF-Gnat), since I'm not done with my reasearch yet and also have other things to do. > create a 'derived work' of Microsoft Windows(TM) by writing any > program that uses any Windows DLL. And you don't have to stick > Microsoft's EULA to it, you can even licence it under GPL. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 11:32 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 12:04 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 13:16 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: >> If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that >> Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily > > You're completely right in that respect. State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source programs from free software libraries and everyone knows what you are really talking about, I think. - Do the respective MS EULAs permit modifying the DLL source code and distributing works based on these modified DLLs using any license of your choosing? - I find it a bit dangerous to say the word "right" in a discussion of legal issues. That aside, the word "freedom" always has points of reference. Freedom for whom to do what to what, provided that, etc. As Ludovic has said, it is important to keep in mind that Free Software uses some specific points of references when it says what free means in the GPL. Playing with the word "free" saying less free or more free without stating the other parts of the notion of "free" is in fact a well known omission trick in persuasive rhetoric, used when the speakers want to fool others - and sometimes themselves. Ahmadinedjad has been trying this game, too, referring to some deliberately incomplete definition of freedom as in freedom of press, when he pointed out that he thinks that western press is in fact not free. We are not free to stone someone to death, and we are not free to distribute closed source software that is derived from a Free Software library. Fair enough, I'd say. Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:04 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 13:16 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 15:37 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > > > >> If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that > >> Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily > > You're completely right in that respect. > > State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source programs > from free software libraries and everyone knows what you are really > talking about, I think. Yes, and why not? (a) Read that not as closed as in "locking my customer in", but as closed as in "my customers want me to sign an NDA (of his concepts embodied in the source) and wants to be sure its binding". (b) Other communites (Ocaml, Qt) don't have a problem with that. > Do the respective MS EULAs permit modifying the DLL source code and > distributing works based on these modified DLLs using any license of > your choosing? No, but neither would the LGPL and the GMGPL. So why GPL instead of the other two? There must be an answer to that ... :-). And that "any license of your choosing" is slightly ironic if I consider that ACT has just completely stripped the linking exceaptions from an only sligtly changed florist library. > I find it a bit dangerous to say the word "right" in a discussion Talking about "legal issues" is always dangerous. It's in society like "nuclear" in physics. Don't touch it, for experts only. But don't fear. The counterspell IANAL, IANAL effectively protects you from the danger the discussion of your rights inevitably incurs. Or so I'm told :-). (Please add more smileys here where needed. YMMV. Ahem.) > of legal issues. That aside, the word "freedom" always has points > of reference. Freedom for whom to do what to what, provided that, etc. Dependency. If I rely on situation X now, who has the power to change it and what's the cost for me to deal with the change. > As Ludovic has said, it is important to keep in mind that Free Software > uses some specific points of references when it says what free means > in the GPL. Hello ... There is also LGPL. Why is that so? No point of reference? > Playing with the word "free" saying less free or more free without > stating the other parts of the notion of "free" is in fact a well > known omission trick in persuasive rhetoric, used when the speakers > want to fool others - and sometimes themselves. Yes. > Ahmadinedjad has been trying this game, too, referring to some > deliberately incomplete definition of freedom as in freedom of press, > when he pointed out that he thinks that western press is in fact not > free. > We are not free to stone someone to death, and we are not free to Strange comparison. Rethorical, eh? > distribute closed source software that is derived from a Free Software > library. Fair enough, I'd say. LGPL. LGPL. LGPL. I think you're missing some points. But never mind. _This thread was about GPL Gnat and I dare say that the right of reverting to GPL was part of the agreement between ACT and the FSF when GNat was integrated into GCC. Since there is another GMGPL Ada compiler now the discussion about GPL Gnat is indeed mood. I don't care. But about the libraries I completely disagree, but it's hard to count "moral arguments" of the rather all inclusive type like your last one (free, fairness, freedom free). I dare say if one follows an argument based on a definition that freedom is absence of lock-ins and dependencies (on the future well meaning of vendors / copyright holders / whatever) and ask where and when dependencies arise, one would come to a different result. After all, as I said, the world is not black and white and the question is not GPL or not, but there are also GMGPL and LGPL. If, of course you think, that "free" in any sense only pairs well with "free" -- like your above arguments seems to indicate -- I'd suggest that futureapps.de (Your Employer / company?) would stop using free Linux and free Apache to server their business web pages thus unfairly and unfreely commercially profiting (boo, boo) from the free software. I think that rather indicates that tool use must be distinguished from modifying software (a derived work). Libraries are somewhat in between and it is open to discussion inhowfar _using_ a library make a derived work from your program. Is i.e. my source compiled at AIX a derived work of the AIX libc? Hardly. It even becomes more absurd if we're talking about the compiler runtime: Compiling with GPL Gnat make your excutable a derive work of the GPL Gnat. Sounds like a legal trick to me, nothing else. Not the spirit of the GPL, rather the letter. But as I said: Discussions about GPL Gnat are useless, there are alternatives. (Discussions about GPL vs. LGPL vs. GMGPL as library license on the other other side are rather necessary, I think). Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 13:16 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 15:37 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 17:43 ` M E Leypold ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: >> State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source programs >> from free software libraries and everyone knows what you are really >> talking about, I think. > > Yes, and why not? The GPL Preamble states the intent that software derived from GPL sources be GPLed. I think, yes, this could be called a lock. So probably not a good choice for you and your customers, if for some reason some third party would have the right to obtain your sources, and you don't want that to happen. What has AdaCore's business to do with that? If you are not an AdaCore customer... It could mean that the wealth of libraries that AdaCore has embraced will no longer be available to the community of small budget, closed source businesses. I'm not happy about this, but this is just business (business tends to have its preferences frequently narrowed down to what is necessary to get through the next few years. That's unlike Ada...) > (b) Other communites (Ocaml, Qt) don't have a problem with that. Neither does AdaCore have a problem with closed source applications, nor does the FSF GNAT, and some libraries. OCaml is publicly funded. Qt uses a dual licensing model, too, AFAICS. Besides, the Ada community is not named AdaCore, they have their own community. Which adds weight to your argument that Ada libraries might become somewhat dependent on GNAT GPL. They had already been dependent on GNAT's language extension 'Img. >> Do the respective MS EULAs permit modifying the DLL source code and >> distributing works based on these modified DLLs using any license of >> your choosing? > > No, but neither would the LGPL and the GMGPL. So why GPL instead of > the other two? There must be an answer to that ... :-). The answer is: GNAT GPL is intended for Free Software programmers. The GAP is good for AdaCore and their customers because they can, for example, find future employees in universities. (You call it "bait" in another reply.) >> As Ludovic has said, it is important to keep in mind that Free Software >> uses some specific points of references when it says what free means >> in the GPL. > > Hello ... There is also LGPL. Why is that so? No point of reference? As I said elsewhere, this was discussed and the FSF preference is still this: avoid the LGPL, because it does not help spreading Free Software. The main reference is freedom for others, as Ludovic has said. The decision to add an exception to FSF GCC libraries enumerates its points of reference. You will find an explanation why LGPL is not preferred. GNAT GPL Edition agrees with the preference of the FSF. What other producers of non-GNU libraries do is their business. For example, the EFL offers a different approach. >> distribute closed source software that is derived from a Free Software >> library. Fair enough, I'd say. > > LGPL. LGPL. LGPL. EFL, BSD, etc. So what? If it is AdaCore's choice to use GPL, who could stop them? I think that your business's need for a GMGPL library won't, because your business is not their business. > I think you're missing some points. I don't think I'm missing GPL points here. > I dare say if one follows an argument > based on a definition that freedom is absence of lock-ins and > dependencies (...) and ask where and when dependencies arise, one > would come to a different result. The GPL is a deliberate choice that deliberately ignores arguments that (have to) prefer independence of the GPL terms. > If, of course you think, that "free" in any sense only pairs well with > "free" -- like your above arguments seems to indicate -- I'd suggest > that futureapps.de (Your Employer / company?) would stop using free > Linux and free Apache to server their business web pages thus unfairly > and unfreely commercially profiting (boo, boo) from the free software. In fact, we did and do contribute to free software, incl. some money. Both because it's fair, and because it helps our business. It also tends to follow open standards. Obviously, we haven't contributed in a big way. We also use GPL software where we can. We can't always, you describe the situation as known to you. But we don't complain that makers of Free Software disallow use of their GPL tools and components for closed source software. If you need that, pay them, if you can. > Compiling with GPL Gnat make your excutable a derive work of > the GPL Gnat. Sounds like a legal trick to me, nothing else. This is just how a license works, and is in accord with the intent or spirit of the GPL: promote Free Software. The GCC docs explain why they placed exceptions on the FSF GCC libraries, and also why this is an exceptional exception. Unfortunately, the great majority of business entities have been educated to take advantage of anyone and anything. This can certainly be in the way of seeing the Free Software model as economically viable in many cases, and from many perspectives. -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 15:37 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 17:43 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 18:27 ` M E Leypold ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > > If, of course you think, that "free" in any sense only pairs well with > > "free" -- like your above arguments seems to indicate -- I'd suggest > > that futureapps.de (Your Employer / company?) would stop using free > > Linux and free Apache to server their business web pages thus unfairly > > and unfreely commercially profiting (boo, boo) from the free software. > > In fact, we did and do contribute to free software, incl. some money. > Both because it's fair, and because it helps our business. It also > tends to follow open standards. Obviously, we haven't contributed > in a big way. We also use GPL software where we can. We can't always, > you describe the situation as known to you. > But we don't complain that makers of Free Software disallow use of > their GPL tools and components for closed source software. If you > need that, pay them, if you can. I didn't do that, and I'd rather you took that back. If (which I find doubtful) tried to follow my arguments you'll find that (a) I never doubted AdaCores right to put Gnat GPL under GPL. (b) Considered it harmful to the community (that is the widespread use of Ada as alangauge in areas presently occupied by C/C++/Java) that there are perhaps (which is still usbject to research) no modern and commerically viable Bindings to graphical toolkit. (c) Answered to you morally founded argument that users of free tools should produce free software that The answer that I'm only "complain that makers of Free Software disallow use of their GPL tools (..)" goes a bit far. Apart from the fact that Gnat is based on GCC which doesn't have that usage restriction, I seriously doubt that anybody here has been aware of the GtkAda licensing change before. (which is the primary point in (b)). I'm not complaining: I did try to clarify a situation and was met (by you) with probably irrelevant and rather philosphical arguments about what should and what should not. I actively resent being then drawn into a discussion about the morality of profiting from free software and getting replies that start with "your business should" all the time. I didn't ask your advice on that. I've had a rather longish point to point answer to your last one, but after I found myself reiteratiing the same points again and again, decided that it is useless. Since I can't see your point in all of that, this discussion is ended from my side. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 15:37 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 17:43 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 18:27 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 19:26 ` M E Leypold [not found] ` <rntq9299uobutv707i07gqi87oeba18e63@4ax.com> 3 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi George, > > I dare say if one follows an argument > > based on a definition that freedom is absence of lock-ins and > > dependencies (...) and ask where and when dependencies arise, one > > would come to a different result. > > The GPL is a deliberate choice that deliberately ignores arguments > that (have to) prefer independence of the GPL terms. As I said, im not interested in continuing that discussion. But for the record I find it necessary to state that the "dependencies" I have been talking about are not "dependencies from the GPL" but dependencies from vendor decisions. I've been talking about library licenses specfically and the vendor decision I'm refering to is of course the (not very well documented) stripping of a linking exception from the license. This is not a personal complaint, just the observation, that people might be a tad surprised after relying on (continued) GMGPL for GtkAda (continued because a change in free software licensing is rather unusual) that the license actually changed a long time ago (which seems not to be common knowledge). Here is a vendor decision that influences not only the future but also the present standing of a project (be it commercial or free in any sense). In my book that spells "dependency". Freedom can be taken back: Not only in the future, but also in the present. How that does impact my work should not be your concern, so please spare me any advice of the kind "I think that your business's need (...)". I'll cope, but I dare to say that the community will be slightly surprised. Which illustrates my point rather well. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 15:37 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 17:43 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 18:27 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 19:26 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 19:45 ` M E Leypold [not found] ` <rntq9299uobutv707i07gqi87oeba18e63@4ax.com> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > But we don't complain that makers of Free Software disallow use of > their GPL tools and components for closed source software. If you > need that, pay them, if you can. George, I know I'm not consistent, but I'd like to point you to http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/3e26dfa741e64e5f/bbff925a8e74f167?lnk=st&q=Ada+Whalen+Dewar&rnum=4&hl=de#bbff925a8e74f167 which has a rather good exegesis of Steve Whalen on the point wether GNAT is ACT's to do with it what they want, and also a relevant rather lengthy Robert Dewar quote. After reading that you'll perhaps understand that the situation is not as cut and dried as it seems to you and also why I resent to being portrayed by you in public as someone just trying to sponge off ACTs God Given Property (i.e. Gnat). Gnat is not "their tool". They're licensing the code base under GPL themselves and the original DOD grants as well as the history of the last decade always imply some obligation to keep Gnat free, presumably for all users not only in the "free for free software sense". So any complaint of mine in the direction that they didn't follow that obligation any more, would have been fully justified. My issue actually was elsewhere (since a the FSF compiler is available) and than got bogged down in lots of (IMHO inappropriate) GPL philosophy. Nonetheless, thanks for the accusations. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 19:26 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 19:45 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 19:47 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 23:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > > > But we don't complain that makers of Free Software disallow use of > > their GPL tools and components for closed source software. If you > > need that, pay them, if you can. > > George, > > I know I'm not consistent, but I'd like to point you to > http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/3e26dfa741e64e5f/bbff925a8e74f167?lnk=st&q=Ada+Whalen+Dewar&rnum=4&hl=de#bbff925a8e74f167 Wrong post. The right one is: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/24ac770ebf312b7a/e4fdf88d2a6768a6?lnk=st&q=Whalen+Dewar+happen&rnum=1&hl=de#e4fdf88d2a6768a6 I just happen to see that the "wrong quote" actually answers a posting by you. Since that didn't convince you then (you didn't answer on Steve Whalens comments), it probably won't convince you now. But please stop to imply that other people try to rip off ACT :-). If there is not enough community to get a commercially also-for-closed-source Ada environment (that means appropriate libs also) going, all the people that would want that will go elsewhere and there will be peace in c.l.a. If the community actually can get such an environment going and maintain it, the better. But now way are Gnat nor the libraries a one sided gracious gift of ACT to the unwashed masses. I acknowledge their contribution (I also acknowledge that the got paid for it). Another relevant quote is http://groups.google.de/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/2c7b0b777188b7c4/5a960e6166cc5f3a?tvc=1&q=Ada+Whalen+Dewar&hl=de#5a960e6166cc5f3a "if you weren't reading comp.lang.ada and following GNAT back then, please use Google groups and go back and read what the ACT/AdaCore people were saying back then. They took great pains to explain that exactly what they are now doing would be "bad"." I don't have the intention to revive that thread (please not). But what you accuse me of ("complain") seems to have been a pretty common occurrence some months ago and as it seems not all out of greed to get everything for cheap, but out of a rather different understanding of the implied obligations ACT had to the community. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 19:45 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 19:47 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 23:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw) > Steve Whalens comments), it probably won't convince you now. But > please stop to imply that other people try to rip off ACT :-). If > there is not enough community to get a commercially That should have read "commercially viable". > also-for-closed-source Ada environment (that means appropriate libs > also) going, all the people that would want that will go elsewhere and Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 19:45 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 19:47 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 23:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-25 11:48 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > First let my clarify why I got the impression you are in fact complaining about how the GPL defines "free" (or how issues got once again nailed down): Georg> "State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source Georg> programs from free software libraries ..." Markus> "Yes, and why not?" Because from the perspective of the GPL, wanting to derive closed from GPLed is opposed to the intent of the GPL. The typical way out is by a contract which involves payment, and an exception. Unfortunately, also a substantial sum in this case. > (you didn't answer on > Steve Whalens comments), it probably won't convince you now. I didn't answer his comment because he has good points, and all sides are arguable endlessly. Things are in constant flux, obviously, even though from a _formal_ perspective nothing much has changed (same license, just no more exception, as I had said). In fact, I find it sad that there is no more community/public funding for more "intervendor" Ada stuff. And it is a pity that AdaCore uses 'Img everywhere something could be useful without their compiler. But they have said more than once that they are not in the business of getting Ada software compile with other vendors' compilers. They've got a point, though reading back in Ada history I find this a little disappointing. > But > please stop to imply that other people try to rip off ACT :-). Well, rip off, no, but sure we are all happily using good software initially made by a well-funded university spin-off, AFAICT. Of course they have now done a great deal themselves, who would doubt this. So if the likes of us need GtkAda GMGPLed now, we'll need to reinvent that wheel, as we can now profit from AdaCore's software if and only if we can write GPLed software, or use it in some other way permitted by the GPL. In the light of the discussion you found, there were important arguments that show how some software efforts more or less depend on what AdaCore does, as a matter of fact. (Many interesting GNAT projects found a home within AdaCore.) If this dependence weren't there, there would have been less need to determine the licensing state of GNAT related Ada software for Debian, for example, as AdaCore is indeed the party to decide that e.g. AWS is now GPL. In the light of other discussions you will find a real need for a GMGPL GNAT low cost edition. Limited support has been suggested, of the kind that is available from some vendors: - AdaCore software, components in particular, is just what you need - AdaCore software usually depends on GNAT - AdaCore has explained why they choose to have these dependences So basically, if you choose a more viable compiler (licensing, cost) together with (now) AdaCore (formerly independent GMGPL) components, you won't be able to compile anything without making changes to the components, trivial as they may be. GMGPL or GPL does not matter, then ... There were comments stating that other parties could try to provide this kind of support for GNAT software. Reportedly, ACT had tried this kind of support contract, too, and it didn't work well for them. See also Michael Bode's posting of tonight. > out of a rather different understanding of > the implied obligations ACT had to the community. IIUC, Steve Whalen emphasized that anyway the tax payer community should have a word in the licensing to the effect that it be more GMGPL, to be generally useful for those who did originally pay for it. "Presumably for all users not only in the 'free for free software sense'", as you have put it. This was about the compiler and the run time system. I'm all in favor of some more community based funding of generally useful Ada components. But the GNAT contract seems to have been about just an Ada compilation system. Arguing about GPL AWS, GtkAda and so on is then a very different understanding of any obligations, alleged or implied, because, formally, the compiler/run time licensing needn't apply to general purpose software components. And yes, obviously this tends to be an occasion for, well, complaints. I for one will be happy to join the moaning, even though in my case this has not so much to do with projects, or money. -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 23:16 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-25 11:48 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-25 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > > > First let my clarify why I got the impression you are in fact > complaining about how the GPL defines "free" (or how issues got > once again nailed down): > > Georg> "State that you want the freedom of deriving closed source > Georg> programs from free software libraries ..." > Markus> "Yes, and why not?" Sorry, I see nothing mentioning the GPL up to that point. As I repeatedly pointed out, LGPL and GMGPL also qualify for free. So there is no contradiction per se in dereiving closed source from free software. As an aside I'd like to hint that I see a number of cases where GPL bindings have been put on Top of LGPL libraries. Its open do debate wether the intentions of the authors of this LGPL libraries have been resepected here (legally no problem, morally: I don't know). > In fact, I find it sad that there is no more community/public > funding for more "intervendor" Ada stuff. > And it is a pity that AdaCore uses 'Img everywhere something > could be useful without their compiler. But they have said more > than once that they are not in the business of getting Ada software > compile with other vendors' compilers. They've got > a point, though reading back in Ada history I find this a little > disappointing. I can can agree with you here. But sometimes I find your attitude of submissiveness to ACTs policies a bit disturbing. > > > But > > please stop to imply that other people try to rip off ACT :-). > > Well, rip off, no, but sure we are all happily using good software > initially made by a well-funded university spin-off, AFAICT. > Of > course they have now done a great deal themselves, who would doubt > this. So if the likes of us need GtkAda GMGPLed now, "need ... now" is wrong. We need it to stay GMGPLed. Taking back licenses is not good. > we'll need to reinvent that wheel, as we can now profit from > AdaCore's software if and only if we can write GPLed software, or > use it in some other way permitted by the GPL. Or we migrate to another language where the community hasn't got all this problems and lock-ins ... -- But as I said elsewhere: Everyone who recommends this as a solution has no business to bemoan the decline of Ada as a language nor how bad it is that C/C++/Java/C# get used in a lot projects despite their deficiencies. (May I, as an asidem quote from "Software Engineering with Ada: Ada is NOT a Four-Letter Word" by Colin Pratt at http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/92_apr/file3.htm: "From a manager's point of view, there is much to be gained by settling on one primary language for system development. (...) Ada is the logical choice for a primary language. Suited for business oriented systems as well as for C3 and embedded control systems, Ada can enable a programming staff to expand its range of support to all three disciplines, further capitalizing on valuable technical assets. NCTAMS LANT's experience with Ada has been positive." Thus where the high hopes with which Ada began. Technically (as a language definition) it still has the potential to replace all lesser imperative compiled languages (well, almost). Ada does many things right, that other languages only do not ore half-heartedly. Ada also has a really readable and understandable RM which certain other languages don't. But success of a language is not just made by a good and undertsnadable language definition but also by availability of bindings to surrounding environment. And that is where the situation for Ada first looked quite OK and then started to detoriate when a lot of bindings to LGPL libraries where put under GPL. I hope that this situation can me remedied somehow. As it is, who starts with Ada either as a language to develop for others or as a language to develop internally, either has the choice to be rstricted (from the very beginning) to more simple tools (which perhaps even in-house don't meet aesthetical standards of non-tech users) or risk being later faced by a choice between a huge entry barrier into the market or open source the codebase accumulated until then. ) > In the light of the discussion you found, there were important > arguments that show how some software efforts more or less depend > on what AdaCore does, as a matter of fact. > (Many interesting GNAT projects found a home within AdaCore.) And where switched to GPL after some maintenance, disregarding, that a number of people submitted patches and/or contributions to the projects in a more liberal license situation. > If this dependence weren't there, there would have been less need to > determine the licensing state of GNAT related Ada software for > Debian, for example, as AdaCore is indeed the party to decide that > e.g. AWS is now GPL. <snipped > So basically, if you choose a more viable compiler (licensing, cost) > together with (now) AdaCore (formerly independent GMGPL) components, > you won't be able to compile anything without making changes to the > components, trivial as they may be. GMGPL or GPL does not matter, > then ... Which "begs the question" (hey, yes, I know :-)) how free are these libraries then. > There were comments stating that other parties could try to > provide this kind of support for GNAT software. > Reportedly, ACT had tried this kind of support contract, too, > and it didn't work well for them. Well. In a number of other communities (python, ocaml, even php) there is a level of, let's say, free style community supporr, below the heavy weight "pay $N-1000/year" contracts. If you look there, you'll find, that there are a lot of professionals actually making money from using or even modyfying free software and giving back to the community by incrementally continuiong devolpment or by debugging or documenting (both very valuable as I have explained elsewhere). Admittedly my hope is/was, that the Ada community is not to small to have/develop this kind of community process. As it is just now, I have the impression, that the interest group for a GMGPL environment (i.e. collecting GMGPL source and meintaining it towork with the FSF compiler) is not large enough and doesn't carry enough man power to do that work (well, to be open, I can name the activists: Ludovico, Martin, Jeffrey -- those three are doing that as a hobby, and I could name myself and are very willing to open as any source as possible -- like the flowing-text-label to GTKAda I developed recently -- but that's it AFAICS). > > out of a rather different understanding of > > the implied obligations ACT had to the community. > IIUC, Steve Whalen emphasized that anyway the tax > payer community should have a word in the licensing to the effect that > it be more GMGPL, to be generally useful for those who did originally > pay for it. "Presumably for all users not only in the 'free for > free software sense'", as you have put it. This was about the compiler > and the run time system. Yes, we started with that (since you came repeatedly back to ACTs right to change the license to "their tools" to GPL), and as I said already, I don't want to take issue with that. As I see it, ACT has discharged their obligation to the community by hepling to reintegrate the GNAT code base into the FSF tree. Since there is now a GMGPL compiler I don't want to talk about GPL Gnat any more. Let's be silent about that. The issue I want to take, that with the present creeping license changes of a number of libraries and support software from more liberal licenses to GPL, the licensing situation of the supporting environment has been, well, sort of borgified: Again "free for free software only", apart from what you say, that more and more dependencies on the ACT compiler creep in. I take issue here, while I admit that ACT probably has even more (legal) right to change those library licenses than the had the (moral) right to change the license of Gnat. But this is not about ACTs "right" to do things, but simply about the effects on the community (read: our programming environment of choice) and what can be done now to avert negaitve effects (which probably don't hit all of us, but only a specfic sub group). Now, that would be the point to make some kind of appeal to the community, like - If you write libraries, don't write them for ACT Gnat only. - If you choose a license, please choose GMGPL, even if you compile with Gnat GPL. This is possible and legal (AFAIK, IANAL). - Try to salvage the GMGPL versions from the archives and maintain and develop with the FSF compiler. but I'm not at the point yet to know, wether I really want to make that appeal. I'm not given to Don Quichote style adventures, not sure wether the way of least resistance would not just lead elsewhere, and wether there would be enough activists whose interests align with mine. > I'm all in favor of some more community based funding of generally > useful Ada components. Say "supported" instead of "funded" and we agree here. I don't think, that presently you could get somebody to fund comeponents development exactly because the situation is so desolate (perhaps ttoo strong a word, but you get the meaning). > But the GNAT contract seems to have been about just an Ada > compilation system. Exactly what I said above. As I said: ACT has probably discharged its obligations there and we can at least agree that we can assume that it has. The issue is not ACT Gnat but the components/library situation (and rather specifically: The bindings to operating system service and GUI components). > Arguing about GPL AWS, GtkAda and so on is then a very different > understanding of any obligations, alleged or implied, because, formally, > the compiler/run time licensing needn't apply to general purpose software > components. Right. Looking backward: What about all the contributions that have been give under the other licenses? Just as long as we discuss principles that question should be answered. But I don't want to discuss principles (you did :-)). Looking forward: What can be done? What can be salvaged from the situation? Partly also: What _is_ the situation, actually? > And yes, obviously this tends to be an occasion for, well, > complaints. I for one will be happy to join the moaning, even though Please do so. :-) > in my case this has not so much to do with projects, or money. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <rntq9299uobutv707i07gqi87oeba18e63@4ax.com>]
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... [not found] ` <rntq9299uobutv707i07gqi87oeba18e63@4ax.com> @ 2006-06-24 21:07 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-25 17:50 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-28 19:03 ` Niklas Holsti 2006-06-25 11:55 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > Slipping in from the side... A non-support, run-time distribution, > license in the $200 range would probably get a lot of takers (price > range varying depending upon upgrade procedure I'd be one, let's say somewhere below 1000ᅵ for the GPL Edition with GMGPL licensing. In fact I asked AdaCore for such a beast. Doesn't exist an probably never will. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 21:07 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-25 17:50 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-25 18:47 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-25 20:49 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:03 ` Niklas Holsti 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-25 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrote: > I'd be one, let's say somewhere below 1000ᅵ for the GPL Edition with > GMGPL licensing. In fact I asked AdaCore for such a beast. Doesn't > exist an probably never will. Just trying to find some vaguely relevant post to hang this on... :-) A fair amount of the discussion in this thread was covered when AdaCore first announced GNAT GPL 2005, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at that time. I thought a lot about this back then, and came to a few realizations about developing Ada software with GNAT GPL 200x and trying to make money selling fully GPLed software, which were posted in some form back then, but let me try to summarize them here: 1) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it, either over the internet or in a shrinkwrapped box. Okay, so what's the problem? You're making money. Unless it's some trivial program, or your target market is developers, _nobody_cares_ that the source code is available. Put it on the CD or DVD--the accountant who bought your tax prep program isn't going to rebuild the executables. Worse, it's in Ada, who's going to set up an Ada development environment to rebuild it? :-) 2) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it to customers with whom you establish an ongoing support relationship. If it's a non-technical product, see (1). If it's technical and they are interested in source code, verbally _request_ that they not redistribute the distribution, e.g., AdaCore customers. Alternatively, verbally notify them that if they redistribute the source you will not renew their support contract, i.e., Red Hat Enterprise customers. Doing this IS legal! I requested clarification directly from the FSF and got this response from the FSF Licensing Team: "There is nothing in the license to prevent this; in fact, Red Hat does exactly this with customers of their support services. This is not quite the same thing as placing restrictions on the software -- after all, the customers are still legally able to exercise all their rights under the GPL. There is little we can do to prevent them from putting themselves in that position." The FSF clearly does not like this practice, but it is legal, because the customer can still exercise all aspects of the GPL, they just may lose the ability to get support from you the developer. A business cannot be forced to provide or extend a support contract to someone it doesn't want to. Hope this muddies the waters. -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-25 17:50 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-25 18:47 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-25 20:49 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-25 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes: > Just trying to find some vaguely relevant post to hang this on... :-) I'll answer anyway :-) I work for a company, so my boss decides over licensing, not me. I would have no problem with GPL. > 1) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it, either over the > internet or in a shrinkwrapped box. Okay, so what's the problem? > You're making money. Unless it's some trivial program, or your target > market is developers, _nobody_cares_ that the source code is > available. Put it on the CD or DVD--the accountant who bought your > tax prep program isn't going to rebuild the executables. Worse, it's > in Ada, who's going to set up an Ada development environment to > rebuild it? :-) The problem here might not be the source code but the redistribution of the binaries. Sell 1 copy, have 1 million users. Of course the same applies to EULAed software, then it's called piracy. > 2) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it to customers with > whom you establish an ongoing support relationship. If it's a > non-technical product, see (1). If it's technical and they are > interested in source code, verbally _request_ that they not > redistribute the distribution, e.g., AdaCore customers. > Alternatively, verbally notify them that if they redistribute the > source you will not renew their support contract, i.e., Red Hat > Enterprise customers. How do you know whose support contract is it that you won't renew? My main problem and the only thing I feel I have reason to complain about is that it seems AdaCore might be changing licenses secretly, deceiving users by false statements in file headers and maybe doing this in a retroactive way (GtkAda). At least I'm not the only one who thought GtkAda was GMGPL simply because this is explicitely written in every single spec file of the package (except 3 files belonging to gate). Also I find the position that any statements about licensing in files distributed with software or in file headers are invalid more than disturbing. If we subscribe to this, GPL is totally fucked up. Imagine Linus signing GPL certificate letters to Linux users for the rest of his life. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-25 17:50 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-25 18:47 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-25 20:49 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 11:04 ` Ludovic Brenta [not found] ` <n1nu92praahokl5ev7ih75j9f2t09hugt8@4ax.com> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-25 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes: > Michael Bode wrote: > > I'd be one, let's say somewhere below 1000ᅵ for the GPL Edition with > > GMGPL licensing. In fact I asked AdaCore for such a beast. Doesn't > > exist an probably never will. > > Just trying to find some vaguely relevant post to hang this on... :-) > > > A fair amount of the discussion in this thread was covered when > AdaCore first announced GNAT GPL 2005, and there was much wailing and > gnashing of teeth at that time. Indeed. At least as far as GNAT GPL is concerned. > I thought a lot about this back then, and came to a few realizations > about developing Ada software with GNAT GPL 200x and trying to make > money selling fully GPLed software, which were posted in some form > back then, but let me try to summarize them here: > > 1) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it, either over the > internet or in a shrinkwrapped box. Okay, so what's the problem? > You're making money. Unless it's some trivial program, or your target > market is developers, _nobody_cares_ that the source code is > available. Put it on the CD or DVD--the accountant who bought your > tax prep program isn't going to rebuild the executables. Worse, it's > in Ada, who's going to set up an Ada development environment to > rebuild it? :-) Completely right. But: There is also the case when the customer wants the developer(s) to sign an NDA. Usually (happened too me) these customers are deeply uneasy with the GPL around. They fear (and I don't even know wether they are right) that they cannot bind the developers into not disclosing the code written under contract, and they fear that contact with GPL code "frees" their own code with all their methods and concepts. They are not sure and in a competitive situation (meaining multiple bidders) that means they don't touch the offer where they are not sure. > > 2) So you develop a GPLed application and sell it to customers with > whom you establish an ongoing support relationship. If it's a > non-technical product, see (1). If it's technical and they are > interested in source code, verbally _request_ that they not > redistribute the distribution, e.g., AdaCore customers. > Alternatively, verbally notify them that if they redistribute the > source you will not renew their support contract, i.e., Red Hat > Enterprise customers. Doing this IS legal! I requested clarification > directly from the FSF and got this response from the FSF Licensing > Team: > > "There is nothing in the license to prevent this; in fact, Red Hat does > exactly this with customers of their support services. This is not > quite the same thing as placing restrictions on the software -- after > all, the customers are still legally able to exercise all their rights > under the GPL. There is little we can do to prevent them from putting > themselves in that position." On can also just deliver mangled code to the customer with stripped comments and w/o documentation. One can do all that, but actually it's bending the spirit of GPL and obeying the letter only. Note that now I'm talking about libraries, not about GPL Gnat. Personally I'd prefer to have LGPL or GMGPL on libraries and release substantial portions of my reusable code into the community when and where possible and also being able to write closed source when the necessity arises (meaning that I can ensure the customer that I won't disclose his modules to third parties) instead of not releasing anything to the community and giving compilable but otherwise unusable code to the customer. But as Michael Bode pointed out, GPL vs LGPL/GMGPL is not the real question here. The issue at hand is somewhat mor complicated, specifically finding out, what certain licenses are and since when :-). > The FSF clearly does not like this practice, but it is legal, > because the customer can still exercise all aspects of the GPL, they > just may lose the ability to get support from you the developer. A > business cannot be forced to provide or extend a support contract to > someone it doesn't want to. > > Hope this muddies the waters. It does. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-25 20:49 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 11:04 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-26 12:19 ` M E Leypold [not found] ` <n1nu92praahokl5ev7ih75j9f2t09hugt8@4ax.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-26 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes: [about distributing a commercial program under GPL] > Completely right. But: There is also the case when the customer wants > the developer(s) to sign an NDA. Usually (happened too me) these > customers are deeply uneasy with the GPL around. They fear (and I > don't even know wether they are right) that they cannot bind the > developers into not disclosing the code written under contract, and > they fear that contact with GPL code "frees" their own code with all > their methods and concepts. They are not sure and in a competitive > situation (meaining multiple bidders) that means they don't touch the > offer where they are not sure. Suppose you write a program and license it to a customer. You are the author, you own the copyright, therefore you can sell licenses to other customers as well, and you can chose the license terms for each customer. No law forces you to use the same terms for all customers, but law allows you to sell or give away as many licenses as you like. Therefore, even if you sell a proprietary, binary-only license to the first customer, you can *still* sell GPL licenses, BSD licenses or other licenses for the same program to other customers, and you can *still* place your program in the public domain, post it on SourceForge, or do whatever you want with it, since you own the copyright. The only thing the first customer can do to prevent that is to sign a contract with you, whereby you assign your copyright to him (which as I understand is not legal in Germany), or you agree not to distribute your program to anyone else. At this point, the GPL gives the four freedoms to the (sole) licensee, while at the same time the contract restricts *your* freedom to redistribute. If I were a customer, I would systematically insist on such terms when I bought custom-made software. > On can also just deliver mangled code to the customer with stripped > comments and w/o documentation. One can do all that, but actually it's > bending the spirit of GPL and obeying the letter only. I agree, but as I explained, that's what you would do if you wanted to prevent your customers from modifying your program. But as I understand it, that's not the problem you have now; the problem is that your customer wants to prevent *you* from distributing your programs to their competitors, right? Only a contract can do that. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 11:04 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-26 12:19 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 12:39 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > The only thing the first customer can do to prevent that is to sign a > contract with you, whereby you assign your copyright to him (which as I > understand is not legal in Germany), or you agree not to distribute > your program to anyone else. At this point, the GPL gives the four > freedoms to the (sole) licensee, while at the same time the contract > restricts *your* freedom to redistribute. If I were a customer, I would > systematically insist on such terms when I bought custom-made software. Exactly. Two complications arise: - I don't want to hand over exclusively my container and my widget library :-). - The customer, as I have written, is not sure, wether such a contract with me is binding. After all: I have the source, the libs are under GPL -- doesn't that entitle me to distribute under GPL (a right I cannot waive w/o the GPL lapsing for the libs). So the customer is not sure. "Not sure" in business translates as "risk". Instead of jumping through the hoops to consult a lawyer, who might or might not give a definite answer to that, they decide to go with another offer that looks less fraught with ifs. > > > On can also just deliver mangled code to the customer with stripped > > comments and w/o documentation. One can do all that, but actually it's > > bending the spirit of GPL and obeying the letter only. > > I agree, but as I explained, that's what you would do if you wanted to > prevent your customers from modifying your program. But as I understand > it, that's not the problem you have now; the problem is that your > customer wants to prevent *you* from distributing your programs to > their competitors, right? Only a contract can do that. Can it? And can the customer be convinced that it can? That is where lawyerly territory starts ("Quick, the spell of protection, say it now: 'IANAL, IANAL, IANAL'") and customers feel unwell in that territory as well. Especially for small projects, so they tend to avoid complications of that kind as a general rule. Back to libraries like GtkAda and the posibbly future GPL Florist which are my real issue in all that discussion: I'd prefer a simple and clear cut situation (like a well documented GMGPL) to a number of confusing fringe case and legal workarounds. It doesn't equate to freedom in my book to have to refer to a lawyer all the time. Quite the contrary. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 12:19 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 12:39 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-26 13:46 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-26 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes : > Ludovic Brenta writes: > > The only thing the first customer can do to prevent that is to sign a > > contract with you, whereby you assign your copyright to him (which as I > > understand is not legal in Germany), or you agree not to distribute > > your program to anyone else. At this point, the GPL gives the four > > freedoms to the (sole) licensee, while at the same time the contract > > restricts *your* freedom to redistribute. If I were a customer, I would > > systematically insist on such terms when I bought custom-made software. > > Exactly. Two complications arise: > > - I don't want to hand over exclusively my container and my widget > library :-). You can stipulate that in the contract; you can say anything you want in a contract. For example: ARTICLE 1 The developer licenses the Program P and the Libraries L1, L2, of which he is the author, to the customer, under the terms of the GPL. ARTICLE 2 The developer agrees not to distribute the Program P to any third party without written consent of the customer, but remains free to distribute the Libraries to other parties. ARTICLE 3 The customer agrees to pay the sum of X to the developer. Signed, etc. > - The customer, as I have written, is not sure, wether such a > contract with me is binding. After all: I have the source, the libs > are under GPL -- doesn't that entitle me to distribute under GPL (a > right I cannot waive w/o the GPL lapsing for the libs). So the > customer is not sure. "Not sure" in business translates as > "risk". Instead of jumping through the hoops to consult a lawyer, > who might or might not give a definite answer to that, they decide > to go with another offer that looks less fraught with ifs. IANAL either, but I understand that a signed contract overrides any unsigned license, provided that: - the contract is legal (does not force any party to do illegal things) - there is a compensation clause (i.e. you receive money or other form of retribution; a contract has to have obligations for both parties) If you sign a contract whereby you agree not to distribute your program to third parties, then your customer has full assurance, and can sue you later for breach of contract. To reinforce the assurances, you can even stipulate which court is competent should the need arise. This remains true even if you license your program under a non-free, closed-source, proprietary EULA. So, if your customer is really concerned, they should have signed a contract with you already, even before discussing the license terms. > It doesn't equate to freedom in my book to have to refer to a lawyer > all the time. Quite the contrary. You need a lawyer to assist you in legal matters, just like you need a physician to assist you in health matters and a butcher to assist you in meat procurement matters, or like your customer needs a software engineer to assist him in computer-related matters. This is orthogonal to freedom. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 12:39 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-26 13:46 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > M E Leypold writes : > > Ludovic Brenta writes: > > > The only thing the first customer can do to prevent that is to sign a > > > contract with you, whereby you assign your copyright to him (which as I > > > understand is not legal in Germany), or you agree not to distribute > > > your program to anyone else. At this point, the GPL gives the four > > > freedoms to the (sole) licensee, while at the same time the contract > > > restricts *your* freedom to redistribute. If I were a customer, I would > > > systematically insist on such terms when I bought custom-made software. > > > > Exactly. Two complications arise: > > > > - I don't want to hand over exclusively my container and my widget > > library :-). > > You can stipulate that in the contract; you can say anything you want > in a contract. For example: Of course. Only wanted to hint that things are more complicated than in your scenario. > ARTICLE 3 > > The customer agrees to pay the sum of X to the developer. This obviously is the most important part :-). > > Signed, etc. > > > - The customer, as I have written, is not sure, wether such a > > contract with me is binding. After all: I have the source, the libs > > are under GPL -- doesn't that entitle me to distribute under GPL (a > > right I cannot waive w/o the GPL lapsing for the libs). So the > > customer is not sure. "Not sure" in business translates as > > "risk". Instead of jumping through the hoops to consult a lawyer, > > who might or might not give a definite answer to that, they decide > > to go with another offer that looks less fraught with ifs. > > IANAL either, but I understand that a signed contract overrides any > unsigned license, provided that: AFAIK there is no concept like "license" in, i.e. German law. everything is based on contract law (implied contracts where necessary) or rights that are granted one sided by a party to the general public by some declaration (like "hereby I gift XYZ to the public domain). I'm not sure I got that right, perhaps it's also splitting hairs. IANAL, you know. > - the contract is legal (does not force any party to do illegal things) > - there is a compensation clause (i.e. you receive money or other form > of retribution; a contract has to have obligations for both parties) > > If you sign a contract whereby you agree not to distribute your program > to third parties, then your customer has full assurance, and can sue > you later for breach of contract. To reinforce the assurances, you can > even stipulate which court is competent should the need arise. > This remains true even if you license your program under a non-free, > closed-source, proprietary EULA. So, if your customer is really > concerned, they should have signed a contract with you already, even > before discussing the license terms. But doesn't the GPL (on the libs) lapse then if/when the customer tries to restrict my distribution rights :-)? > > It doesn't equate to freedom in my book to have to refer to a lawyer > > all the time. Quite the contrary. > > You need a lawyer to assist you in legal matters, just like you need a The keyword is "all the time". > physician to assist you in health matters and a butcher to assist you If I have to refer to a physician all the time, I'm very ill. If I have to refere to a lawyer all the time (not only for checking/writing the written contract but also for simple forward planning or even for checking wether COPYING is binding, ahem, ahem), something is amiss in the freedom department. > in meat procurement matters, or like your customer needs a software > engineer to assist him in computer-related matters. This is orthogonal > to freedom. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <n1nu92praahokl5ev7ih75j9f2t09hugt8@4ax.com>]
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... [not found] ` <n1nu92praahokl5ev7ih75j9f2t09hugt8@4ax.com> @ 2006-06-26 12:08 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 18:35 ` Marc A. Criley ` (2 more replies) 2006-06-26 18:58 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-27 7:26 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2 siblings, 3 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > On 25 Jun 2006 22:49:48 +0200, M E Leypold > <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> declaimed > the following in comp.lang.ada: > > > > > Completely right. But: There is also the case when the customer wants > > the developer(s) to sign an NDA. Usually (happened too me) these > > customers are deeply uneasy with the GPL around. They fear (and I > Don't know how cost effective it would be -- but, from my viewpoint, It wouldn't. > at least, if a customer wants an NDA in the contract negotiations, the > developer could bring in the cost of the GnatPro license (with compiler > system with license treated as part of the deliverables, or obtained by > the customer with developer working onsite) Well. The calculation would be (as I have shown in another post) that the customer would want to maintain the software for something from 3 to 10 years which with your method would equate to $45.000 to $150.000. Obviously that only has now impact to the customers view on cost effectiveness of the project if that amount is negligible only if the project volume is much large than this amount of money, which would certainly be > $1.000.000. Let's face it: We have a restriction here: Go GPL or pay. I'd wish that people would stop inventing ingenious methods of either circumventing this restrictiction (distributing mangled source or tying the customer into other dependencies that make him refraining from distributing further) or methods of hiding the costs (let the customer pay the compiler support). There is a restriction. It stands to reason that it kills a number of projects that would otherwise been economically viable (to the satisfaction of developer and customer) and can now not be done ore with costs that make them non viable. That much, I think, is undisputed. What is disputed, though, is, wether it should be like this. I cannot say anything on that topic anymore: There are 2 different schools here. One holds that a free tool allows to produce works with the tool that can be sold, even as "closed works". The other holds that "free can only begat free" and that using free tools anyone should not expect to be able to do more than to produce free tools and probably free services. Both schools found their respective view on different evaluations of the situation and probably on different underlying ethical concepts as well (there is always a strong ethical undercurrent in the arguments there). I don't thing it will be possible to mediate between these two schools of thought. Personally I think that "free can only begat free" is contradictory: ACT (i.e.) bases their services on a free compiler, their services are not free though. Same applies to closed source businesses using Apache, Linux, MySQL for working tools. Nobody seriously suggest, that only non profit organisation should be allowed the use of GPL software from now on. All that as nothing to do with copyright, admittedly, but it makes understandable why it is necessary to draw a line between "producing a derived work" (copyright applies, GPL can be enforced) and "using a tool" (that the tool incorporates parts of itself in the product and thus makes it a derived work would be an unwanted effect in this case, hence the birth of LGPL). All in all I don't think that the GPL is being well served by not drawing that line clearly: Much of the FUD around the "viral nature of GPL", like "use a GPL tool and your source must be free" is based on exactly these fringe cases where either the authors of some software didn't care enough to ensure clarify the case or did purposely use the GPL to lock their software away from what they considered unfair profiting. But back to the main theme: I stipulate that the projects killed by the restriction are actually those whose killing harm the case of proliferating Ada most: They take place in the area, where people shift from purely hobbyist or educational use to the first commercial applications of Ada and start to build their infrastructure for future projects. Let me also add: Having tought software engineering courses at german universities I wouldn't try to introduce Ada as a teaching language there today: Whereas the language has all it should have, the skill set acquired by the students would be only usable in very restricted scenarios and this in a small market anyway. It simply wouldn't be responsible to restrict the student's future to the following choices: - Work for DASA or ESA or for the defense industry. - Try to build your own pure Ada shob (w/o previous experience: hard) with whopping fixed costs for the Ada part of your shop. - Restrict yourself to producing GPLed software only in your shops "primary system language". > The GPL curse applies to small independent developers seeking > to produce generally marketable products -- the next Quicken, or > VersaCheck, for example... Given the prohibitive cost of obtaining a > closed-distribution capability for GNAT, they might easily chose to > substitute some other language -- M$ C++ compiler without the > VisualStudio environment appears to be available for the download; > Sun's Java seems to be behind a number of applications... That sums it up nicely. You might substitute "they might easily chose" by "they chose", because that is what the are regularly doing. How do you think that programming languages are chosen? I suggest the following considerations: - Above all: How expensive is an environment with "closed distribution capability" (CDC)? - Can I use the language as single system language, i.e. even if my current application isn't graphical in nature, would I be able to program graphical applications? Would I be able to iterface to the Operating system? - Which libraries (with CDC) are available? - Can I find developers / programmers / collaborators in that language? - How many compilers / build systems are there in the market? Would I be able to fall back to another vendors build system in some years? Would I be able to fall back to community supported software for at least the last years of low intensity maintenance? - And what are the language advantages / disadvantages? The last point creates a kind of vicious circle actually: No CDC -> Skill set not attractive for students -> no Programmers -> no use of the language in small shops --> skill set not attractive for students -> ... You get the picture. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 12:08 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 18:35 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-26 19:29 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 19:01 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-26 21:10 ` Teaching languages (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) Björn Persson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-26 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > - Above all: How expensive is an environment with "closed > distribution capability" (CDC)? Actually, once we in comp.lang.ada get off our fixation with GNAT, the answer to the above is...not necessarily that much, especially for a hobbyist trying to convert their hobby and advocacy into a small business (so long as Windows is the target). The problem is that because AdaCore distributed a free Ada compiler that could be used to build close-sourced applications for awhile, and now their only free, maintained, distribution is for a GPLed compiler, we're all stuck on this notion that we should have access to a free, maintained compiler with which we can build closed-source applications. Move on. If you can pay the $15K, or work with the GPL, then fine, otherwise look elsewhere. I'm sure Randy Brukardt must have just given up in frustration after years of pointing out that Janus Ada (www.rrsoftware.com) has long been available and is priced competitively with other commercial programming environments. According to the website: the Professional Edition, which appear to include CLAW, is $495 ($300/yr maintenance), while the Personal Edition (no CLAW and some other tools) is $195 ($95/yr maintenance), though you can get a Personal Edition combo for $295 ($200/yr maintenance). Or if you want to go the Aonix route (www.aonix.com), the quote I got last year from them was: Windows: $1495 + $1495/yr maintenance Linux: $5000 + $1000/yr maintenance So if you're looking to go the small business route, look elsewhere than AdaCore, and maybe help out another small business (RR) in the process. -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 18:35 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-26 19:29 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 20:31 ` community supported Ada environment (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) Björn Persson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > > - Above all: How expensive is an environment with "closed > > distribution capability" (CDC)? > > Actually, once we in comp.lang.ada get off our fixation with GNAT, the Yes. :-) > answer to the above is...not necessarily that much, especially for a > hobbyist trying to convert their hobby and advocacy into a small business > (so long as Windows is the target). Well ... this is too restrictive a future to me. > The problem is that because AdaCore distributed a free Ada compiler that > could be used to build close-sourced applications for awhile, and now their Not quite. I think the history of Gnat and the obligations involved is a bit more complex than "because AdaCore distributed a free Ada compiler". > only free, maintained, distribution is for a GPLed compiler, we're all > stuck on this notion that we should have access to a free, maintained > compiler with which we can build closed-source applications. > > Move on. Right. That probably means to another language, that has all this, and where I/we can pay our due with contributions to an evinronment, where I don't have to watch my legal back all the time. Freedom is also about this: That I'm reasonably sure that things stay as they are and library licenses (GtkAda, i.e.) don't change over night and without notice. > If you can pay the $15K, or work with the GPL, then fine, otherwise look > elsewhere. I hope you're not trying to shoe me away. :-). You know I've not been arguing about Gnat now for a while, but about the unknown licence of GtkAda and the danger of Florist going completely GPL if the community relies on the maintencance supllied by AdaCore. A compiler, that doesn't have operating system bindings (or which are more restrictively licensed than the rest of the runtime) is worth nothing in my opinion and they could just as well remove Ada from Gcc tree again. > I'm sure Randy Brukardt must have just given up in frustration after years > of pointing out that Janus Ada (www.rrsoftware.com) has long been available > and is priced competitively with other commercial programming environments. I know his compilers. I appreciate his contributions to c.l.a. But the compiler doesn't seem available for Linux or BSD. > According to the website: the Professional Edition, which appear to include > CLAW, is $495 ($300/yr maintenance), while the Personal Edition (no CLAW > and some other tools) is $195 ($95/yr maintenance), though you can get a > Personal Edition combo for $295 ($200/yr maintenance). I know all that. Believe me, I researched the Ada compiler market over more than a year ago very thoroughly. Generally I'm not asking for advice here. Every discussion here seems to gravitate pretty fast to sentences like "If you cannot afford, you should or could...". As I've been reiterating ad nauseam, I'm not intrested in AdaCore Gnat anymore. But doesn't "the community" have any issues with the GtkAda license changes? If so, there are remedies to that. > Or if you want to go the Aonix route (www.aonix.com), the quote I got last > year from them was: > > Windows: $1495 + $1495/yr maintenance > Linux: $5000 + $1000/yr maintenance I got the same quote over a year ago. > So if you're looking to go the small business route, look elsewhere than > AdaCore, and maybe help out another small business (RR) in the process. You know, I understand that very well. I'd have, but the RR product line looks a bit on the way out of the market. Also, there are no bindings to a portable graphical tools kit available. What you're actually spelling out is the message: Ada is dead as a universal language. It's a language for big players and specialists only now. I've actually been prepared to hear that for some time now, but it makes me sad anyway and I've been hoping for a community (of non hobbyists) that is interested to keep a crossplatform enviroment for Ada alive. I've always had a fondness for this kind of languages (from Pascal, Modula, Ada, Oberon), but it probably makes of course no sense "in business" to decide on a this kind of gut feeling. I don't want rely on Language where there is only 1 affordable vendor (even if the bindings I need where available). And I'd like to have the option to go back on community supported tools All that is available with C/C++/Ocaml/Java/whatever. So, if for a moment we go away from "my case" (which I never thought exemplary anyway), are there actually any open questions why Ada is not the language of choice for all the small startups? This question, why there is so much (supposedly bug ridden and unreliable software) is produced in other languages which do not have the rigor of Ada, has turned up repeatedly here. Here might be some answer. I've to admit, that I'm a bit tired of the discussion, since I'm repeating myself. Just to recap my main points: - I'm not asking for advice. I know well what I'm doing :-). I'm asking for information. As I personal statement: Relying on commercially available compiler is in my eyes not an option (YMMV). Generally I'd prefer to change to another language as my primary system language. Which wouldn't preclude me from doing consulting and contract work in Ada, so what :-). - Some licensing questions are still open. Apart from the consequences certain license have or would have the first step should be to find out, what those licenses actually are. - I'm not interested in discussing what AdaCore or whoever has done or should have done. That's their business, but I'd certainly like to know what they are actually doing licensewise: This is in the dark presently as far as GtkAda and some other sources are concerned. - I wonder, how many people are here, that would be interested in trying to collect and maintain a community supported Ada environment. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* community supported Ada environment (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) 2006-06-26 19:29 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 20:31 ` Björn Persson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2006-06-27 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > - I wonder, how many people are here, that would be interested in > trying to collect and maintain a community supported Ada > environment. Here's one. I could only do a small part of the work and I have little hope that enough manpower can be found, but if such a project could be started then I'd want to join it. -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 12:08 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 18:35 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-26 19:01 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-26 19:50 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 21:10 ` Teaching languages (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) Björn Persson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-26 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > > Let's face it: We have a restriction here: Go GPL or pay. Hardly. You can use one of the fine GMGPL compilers available free (3.4.X, 4.1), so need neither go GPL nor pay. You can also use a low-cost compiler from another vendor (RR SW, AONIX), which does not involve going GPL and does not require nearly the investment of GNAT Pro. -- Jeff Carter "People called Romanes, they go the house?" Monty Python's Life of Brian 79 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 19:01 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-26 19:50 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.or> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > > > Let's face it: We have a restriction here: Go GPL or pay. > > Hardly. You can use one of the fine GMGPL compilers available free > (3.4.X, 4.1), so need neither go GPL nor pay. You can also use a > low-cost compiler from another vendor (RR SW, AONIX), which does not > involve going GPL and does not require nearly the investment of GNAT Pro. Please follow my other posts :-). Regarding what I'd call "the environment", like bindings to a portable GUI toolkit or the OS. I know I've been posting a lot these days, and it's difficult to read all that. But I also do not want to rehash everything for the umpteenth time. As far as a general group of answers here go: Answers like "you can use another language" are hardly adequate to problem. But I'll try a simpler approach now: - I love Ada. - I'd like to see a commercially viable (GMGPL or LGPL) environment. - Anybody else? A number of people here seem to interpret requests for informations here as cries for help (sort of "my business is dying, get me a free whatever"). This is all muddled with often not very well thought out philosophy what free means or should mean. Perhaps I _am_ a victim of a language barrier here. Never mind. But as far as I'm concerned my requests only want to (a) Clarify the state of some licenses and their supposed interaction with other licenses. (b) Find out wether there is still a commercially viable avenue in developing portable consumer software with Gnat (FSF) and/or What "portable", "consumer" and "viable" mean in the case I'm trying to make, is basically my definition (and my right to define here). So if one hasn't tried to do exactly that in 2006, most advice is bound to fall short of the real issues here. I.e availability of a compiler, alone, is the least problem one faces (on the other side it already spells desaster if the choice of compiler limits the number of available libraries / bindings). For me, it's not an emergency. I've a number of other options that have nothing to do with Ada. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 19:50 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-27 22:15 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 1:54 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-27 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > > Please follow my other posts :-). Regarding what I'd call "the > environment", like bindings to a portable GUI toolkit or the OS. OK. I have 2 GMGPL versions of GtkAda (2.2.0 and 2.4.0) and a GMGPL version of GNAT (MinGW 3.4.2) on my computer at the moment. (These are not the only compilers or bindings, just the ones that seem relevant to this discussion.) GtkAda is a portable GUI toolkit and GNAT comes with GMGPL bindings to the OS. All were free in terms of money. So I don't see what your complaint is. It's also clear that ACT cannot legally impose the GPL on their compilers the way they have. The DOD contract that resulted in GNAT was to create an Ada-95 compiler that is free (in both senses of the word) and may be used to create un-free programs. (These requirements resulted in the GMGPL.) As there is no Ada-0X standard yet, there can be no Ada-0X compilers yet, and in fact the ACT GPL compilers are Ada-95 compilers that implement some of the features of the Ada-0X draft only as an option. It seems ACT is calling them "200[5|6]" to try to get around the requirements of the contract, but it's clear that these are Ada-95 compilers with some extra features optionally available, and so in violation of the contract. (I wonder who at the DOD one would contact about this, since the AJPO no longer exists.) Of course, IANAL. -- Jeff Carter "Many times we're given rhymes that are quite unsingable." Monty Python and the Holy Grail 57 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-27 22:15 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 1:55 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 1:54 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > It's also clear that ACT cannot legally impose the GPL on their > compilers the way they have. The DOD contract that resulted in GNAT > was to create an Ada-95 compiler that is free (in both senses of the > word) and may be used to create un-free programs. (These requirements > resulted in the GMGPL.) As there is no Ada-0X standard yet, there can > be no Ada-0X compilers yet, and in fact the ACT GPL compilers are > Ada-95 compilers that implement some of the features of the Ada-0X > draft only as an option. It seems ACT is calling them "200[5|6]" to > try to get around the requirements of the contract, but it's clear > that these are Ada-95 compilers with some extra features optionally > available, and so in violation of the contract. (I wonder who at the > DOD one would contact about this, since the AJPO no longer exists.) > > Of course, IANAL. What if the contract had a fixed term, and has now expired? Conjectures, hypotheses and speculation. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 22:15 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 1:55 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > > It's also clear that ACT cannot legally impose the GPL on their > > compilers the way they have. The DOD contract that resulted in GNAT > > was to create an Ada-95 compiler that is free (in both senses of the > > word) and may be used to create un-free programs. (These requirements > > resulted in the GMGPL.) As there is no Ada-0X standard yet, there can > > be no Ada-0X compilers yet, and in fact the ACT GPL compilers are > > Ada-95 compilers that implement some of the features of the Ada-0X > > draft only as an option. It seems ACT is calling them "200[5|6]" to > > try to get around the requirements of the contract, but it's clear > > that these are Ada-95 compilers with some extra features optionally > > available, and so in violation of the contract. (I wonder who at the > > DOD one would contact about this, since the AJPO no longer exists.) > > > > Of course, IANAL. > > What if the contract had a fixed term, and has now expired? > Conjectures, hypotheses and speculation. What if it didn't? Me thinks the expiry date was "when there is no Ada 95 anymore in Gnat". Regards .. Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 1:55 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 19:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold writes: > Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > >> "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: >> > It's also clear that ACT cannot legally impose the GPL on their >> > compilers the way they have. The DOD contract that resulted in GNAT >> > was to create an Ada-95 compiler that is free (in both senses of the >> > word) and may be used to create un-free programs. (These requirements >> > resulted in the GMGPL.) As there is no Ada-0X standard yet, there can >> > be no Ada-0X compilers yet, and in fact the ACT GPL compilers are >> > Ada-95 compilers that implement some of the features of the Ada-0X >> > draft only as an option. It seems ACT is calling them "200[5|6]" to >> > try to get around the requirements of the contract, but it's clear >> > that these are Ada-95 compilers with some extra features optionally >> > available, and so in violation of the contract. (I wonder who at the >> > DOD one would contact about this, since the AJPO no longer exists.) >> > >> > Of course, IANAL. >> >> What if the contract had a fixed term, and has now expired? >> Conjectures, hypotheses and speculation. > > What if it didn't? Me thinks the expiry date was "when there is no Ada > 95 anymore in Gnat". > > Regards .. Markus More conjectures, hypotheses and speculation. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-27 22:15 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 1:54 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 2:12 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 1:54 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > Please follow my other posts :-). Regarding what I'd call "the > > environment", like bindings to a portable GUI toolkit or the OS. > > OK. I have 2 GMGPL versions of GtkAda (2.2.0 and 2.4.0) and a GMGPL > version of GNAT (MinGW 3.4.2) on my computer at the moment. (These are > not the only compilers or bindings, just the ones that seem relevant > to this discussion.) GtkAda is a portable GUI toolkit and GNAT comes > with GMGPL bindings to the OS. All were free in terms of money. So I > don't see what your complaint is. That ACT denies they can remember that ever GtkAda was distributed a GMGPL. That is about all and at the core of all that. You understand that now? Even the older versions from the ACT site are now supposed to be under GPL ONLY, even if they didn't change from the way they very (as we remember) distributed as GMGPL. > It's also clear that ACT cannot legally impose the GPL on their > compilers the way they have. The DOD contract that resulted in GNAT > was to create an Ada-95 compiler that is free (in both senses of the Make me laugh. I got flamed repeatedly because I only suggested that the GMGPL -> GPL transition might not have been quite such a clear cut right of ACT to do and because I wanted to create "unfree programs" with "AdaCore's tools". > word) and may be used to create un-free programs. (These requirements > resulted in the GMGPL.) As there is no Ada-0X standard yet, there can > be no Ada-0X compilers yet, and in fact the ACT GPL compilers are > Ada-95 compilers that implement some of the features of the Ada-0X > draft only as an option. It seems ACT is calling them "200[5|6]" to > try to get around the requirements of the contract, but it's clear > that these are Ada-95 compilers with some extra features optionally > available, and so in violation of the contract. (I wonder who at the > DOD one would contact about this, since the AJPO no longer exists.) I rejoice, that you of all people here have found such clear words on that issue. I've a comment and a suggestion though: (1) The present headaches revolve around the changing license for libraries like GtkAda and Florist (to just name 2). The FSF compiler, if maintained properly, would suffice for most people as Ada 95 compiler. So the pressure to argue against Gnat GPL has somewhat diminished from a purely practical point of view. (2) I'm not sure wether this is only rumor, but I seem to remember something, that ACT has discharged its obliagation of keeping the compiler (a compiler) free by helping the FSF getting it back into the Gcc source tree. If of course you would find somebody at the DOD to contact, I think it would at least be intresting to see what exactly will happen. (This is out of my league, but sometimes it is entertaining an edifying to see the big players move). > > Of course, IANAL. IANAL2. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 1:54 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 2:12 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-28 2:48 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-28 2:12 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > > That ACT denies they can remember that ever GtkAda was distributed a > GMGPL. That is about all and at the core of all that. You understand > that now? Even the older versions from the ACT site are now supposed > to be under GPL ONLY, even if they didn't change from the way they > very (as we remember) distributed as GMGPL. Anything they distributed under the GMGPL remains under the GMGPL. They're certainly allowed to change the license they use for GtkAda for other distributions, but that doesn't affect the license under which they distributed it to you. Florist is maintained and distributed elsewhere, it seems, so that doesn't seem such an issue. But if you're worried that the Florist license might change, get it now so you'll have it with the current license if it does. -- Jeff Carter "Many times we're given rhymes that are quite unsingable." Monty Python and the Holy Grail 57 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 2:12 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-28 2:48 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 2:48 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > That ACT denies they can remember that ever GtkAda was distributed a > > GMGPL. That is about all and at the core of all that. You understand > > that now? Even the older versions from the ACT site are now supposed > > to be under GPL ONLY, even if they didn't change from the way they > > very (as we remember) distributed as GMGPL. > > Anything they distributed under the GMGPL remains under the > GMGPL. They're certainly allowed to change the license they use for > GtkAda for other distributions, but that doesn't affect the license > under which they distributed it to you. Read the other threads. I know that it should be like that, I even think that it is, but still I'd call that demonstrative amnesia of ACT unsettling. An attitude that shouldn't be forgiven by the community -- at least I will remember it. > Florist is maintained and distributed elsewhere, it seems, so that > doesn't seem such an issue. Let me ask -- are they allowed to change the license in files in florist which they hardly changed (only stripping in specifiers from the procedure definitions) and to which they don't hold the original copyright AFAICS? I repeat: My needs are hardly at issue here. This has more and more become a question of principle. I can't stand FUD. > But if you're worried that the Florist license might change, get it > now so you'll have it with the current license if it does. I did. I have the obsessive habit of mirroring anything of interest, since I know how things tend to rot away. Like libre.act-europe.fr did. Regards --Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Teaching languages (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) 2006-06-26 12:08 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 18:35 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-26 19:01 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-26 21:10 ` Björn Persson 2006-06-26 21:39 ` M E Leypold 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Björn Persson @ 2006-06-26 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > Let me also add: Having tought software engineering courses at german > universities I wouldn't try to introduce Ada as a teaching language > there today: Whereas the language has all it should have, the skill > set acquired by the students would be only usable in very restricted > scenarios and this in a small market anyway. If they were software engineering courses I really hope you taught your students something more than a programming language. I was taught Scheme, Pascal and Java in university courses. At work I currently use C++, and a little Python, Perl and Bash. Yet I do use what I learned in those courses: structured programming, information hiding, algorithms, data structures and all that. Universities do teach programming languages, because you can't teach programming without a language, but the language isn't the skill set that the students are supposed to acquire. Pascal was designed specifically for teaching, and I doubt my teachers expected that I'd ever write commercial applications in Scheme. Give your students a good grasp of the paradigms and concepts of computer science, and introduce them to a few different languages (the more different the better), and they'll be able to apply their knowledge to new languages as needed. -- Bj�rn Persson PGP key A88682FD omb jor ers @sv ge. r o.b n.p son eri nu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: Teaching languages (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) 2006-06-26 21:10 ` Teaching languages (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) Björn Persson @ 2006-06-26 21:39 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Bj�rn Persson <spam-away@nowhere.nil> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > Let me also add: Having tought software engineering courses at german > > universities I wouldn't try to introduce Ada as a teaching language > > there today: Whereas the language has all it should have, the skill > > set acquired by the students would be only usable in very restricted > > scenarios and this in a small market anyway. > > If they were software engineering courses I really hope you taught > your students something more than a programming language. I was taught I hope so. We explicitely focused on SE (what was possible in the restricted time) and tried to work on the language independent concepts. And at least on an understanding of the problems involved in constructiong software systematically. > Scheme, Pascal and Java in university courses. At work I currently use > C++, and a little Python, Perl and Bash. Yet I do use what I learned > in those courses: structured programming, information hiding, > algorithms, data structures and all that. > Universities do teach programming languages, because you can't teach > programming without a language, but the language isn't the skill set > that the students are supposed to acquire. I agree. My comment was more in the direction of: A language is a skill set (few companies today are willing to hire anyone for programming work who has not at least some experience in the language they are going to use: Industry these days doesn't believe in the portability of knowledge -- more in trained monkey reflexes). It would be a divident if the student can actually use that skill set in practice. > Pascal was designed specifically for teaching, > and I doubt my teachers expected that I'd ever write commercial > applications in Scheme. > Give your students a good grasp of the For me that's past tense for some time. :-). > paradigms and concepts of computer science, and introduce them to a > few different languages (the more different the better), and they'll Exactly my saying. Unfortunately students of CS in Germany are rather unwilling to learn more than one language and the universities don't seem to see this as necessary. > be able to apply their knowledge to new languages as needed. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... [not found] ` <n1nu92praahokl5ev7ih75j9f2t09hugt8@4ax.com> 2006-06-26 12:08 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 18:58 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-26 19:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 7:26 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-26 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > The GPL curse applies to small independent developers seeking to > produce generally marketable products -- the next Quicken, or > VersaCheck, for example... Given the prohibitive cost of obtaining a > closed-distribution capability for GNAT, they might easily chose to > substitute some other language -- M$ C++ compiler without the > VisualStudio environment appears to be available for the download; Sun's > Java seems to be behind a number of applications... And GNAT is hardly the only low-cost compiler for those targets. -- Jeff Carter "People called Romanes, they go the house?" Monty Python's Life of Brian 79 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 18:58 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-26 19:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:03 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 19:40 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > > > The GPL curse applies to small independent developers seeking to > > produce generally marketable products -- the next Quicken, or > > VersaCheck, for example... Given the prohibitive cost of obtaining a > > closed-distribution capability for GNAT, they might easily chose to > > substitute some other language -- M$ C++ compiler without the > > VisualStudio environment appears to be available for the download; Sun's > > Java seems to be behind a number of applications... > > And GNAT is hardly the only low-cost compiler for those targets. Exactly. There are other languages. All complainers now go away and will leave the Ada community (which has as such no issues with highly prices compilers) alone. That was irony. But please don't do any Ada advocacy from now on. There are reasons why Ada has been falling into disuse slowly (excapt for defense and avionics) despit its technical merits. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 19:33 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 19:03 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 19:29 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 22:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:40 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2006-06-27 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M E Leypold Markus, I've some hard time to understand you. You have a business, you ask for an Ada compiler for free (GMGPL or GPL). This is asking for using somebody else toolset to develop closed-source softwares without paying! So why not use the GPL for your softwares? Why are you asking some company to give-for-free years of work when you are not considering to do the same? Please this is nothing personal, I'm just trying to understand. I know that lot of companies are using GCC, Emacs, OpenOffice, Firebird, Thunderbird... daily and they are not even considering supporting the open source movement. I know some companies are using the Open Source to obtain better price for concurrent applications. One way to contribute to the Open Source movement is to develop GPL softwares. Another way is to support the Open Source by paying support or licenses. But isn't asking for a "commercially viable" free (as free beer) LGPL compiler too much? Right this is possible for some projects like GCC, but I don't see this as fair. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:03 ` Pascal Obry @ 2006-06-27 19:29 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 19:34 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 22:33 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > Right this is possible for some projects like GCC, but I don't see this > as fair. Is it fair to change the past? -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:29 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:34 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 19:57 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 22:34 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2006-06-27 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Bode Michael Bode a �crit : > Is it fair to change the past? You can never change the past. So I do not understand what you are saying. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:34 ` Pascal Obry @ 2006-06-27 19:57 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:12 ` Michael Bode ` (2 more replies) 2006-06-27 22:34 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 3 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > You can never change the past. So I do not understand what you are saying. I'd bet GtkAda 2.4 once was GMGPL. Ludovic Brenta thought that too. M E Leypold had some quotes to that effect in <ctirmmu0fc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>. And now we learn that GtkAda 2.4 never was under GMGPL but GPL. That's what I call changing the past. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:57 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 20:12 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 22:13 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 22:35 ` M E Leypold 2 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > I'd bet GtkAda 2.4 once was GMGPL. Ludovic Brenta thought that too. M > E Leypold had some quotes to that effect in > <ctirmmu0fc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>. The wayback machine is a great tool: http://web.archive.org/web/20050203211706/http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/ -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:57 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:12 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 22:13 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 22:44 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 5:55 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 22:35 ` M E Leypold 2 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > >> You can never change the past. So I do not understand what you are saying. > > I'd bet GtkAda 2.4 once was GMGPL. Ludovic Brenta thought that too. M > E Leypold had some quotes to that effect in > <ctirmmu0fc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>. > > And now we learn that GtkAda 2.4 never was under GMGPL but GPL. That's > what I call changing the past. No, we do not learn that. AdaCore was quite specific in saying they're not saying anything at all about the past. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 22:13 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 22:44 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 9:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 5:55 ` Michael Bode 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > > > Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > > > >> You can never change the past. So I do not understand what you are saying. > > > > I'd bet GtkAda 2.4 once was GMGPL. Ludovic Brenta thought that too. M > > E Leypold had some quotes to that effect in > > <ctirmmu0fc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>. > > > > And now we learn that GtkAda 2.4 never was under GMGPL but GPL. That's > > what I call changing the past. > > No, we do not learn that. AdaCore was quite specific in saying > they're not saying anything at all about the past. Let me paraphrase: - "We are distributing GtkAda 2.4.0 as GPL!" - "What? GtkAda 2.4.0 in 2005/02? GMGPL? We don't know anything about that!" - "What? The versions 2.2.0, 1.3.x etc? From our site? The are GPL!" - "What? They were distributed as GMGPL? We don't know anything about that?" Selective loss of memory or the will to remember does come very close here to a denial that the past ever existed. Indeed it is the strongest mode to deny the past without outright saying so (and get caught, which would be inevitable here). I wonder wether they remember how and when they acquired any right to the sources or wether the selective amnesia also covers that areas. Ludovico: If GtkAda 2.4.0 has been acquired before 2005/02, presumably from libre2.act-europe.fr, and the past has not changed, why don't you let the license as GMGPL? Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 22:44 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 9:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 12:44 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 18:35 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote : > Ludovico: If GtkAda 2.4.0 has been acquired before 2005/02, presumably > from libre2.act-europe.fr, and the past has not changed, why don't you > let the license as GMGPL? But I do; the switch to pure GPL will only affect future versions. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 9:41 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 12:44 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 18:35 ` Michael Bode 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > M E Leypold wrote : > > Ludovico: If GtkAda 2.4.0 has been acquired before 2005/02, presumably > > from libre2.act-europe.fr, and the past has not changed, why don't you > > let the license as GMGPL? > > But I do; the switch to pure GPL will only affect future versions. Ah! I understand. I misunderstood you because you also refered to Gentoo which who already have switched to GPL fro 2.4.0. So -- purely hypothetically -- if a fork of 2.4.0 (from your present version turns) up it might be possible to keep the GPL? Of course there is a number of issues here (maintenance vs. GMGPL, is anybody intrested in maintaining old 2.4.0 etc) but the question is purely hypothetical so far. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 9:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 12:44 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 18:35 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 19:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > M E Leypold wrote : >> Ludovico: If GtkAda 2.4.0 has been acquired before 2005/02, presumably >> from libre2.act-europe.fr, and the past has not changed, why don't you >> let the license as GMGPL? > > But I do; the switch to pure GPL will only affect future versions. I just want to know your opinion: Sarge contains GtkAda 2.4.0 which you obtained at a time when AdaCore called it GMGPL software. There is no new released version of GtkAda but now 2.4.0 is called GPL. What version will be in Etch? The same 2.4.0 as in Sarge but under GPL (which could also be GMGPL), 2.4.0 as downloaded today from libre2... (which then is GPL anyway) or some newer version from CVS? -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 18:35 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 19:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > >> M E Leypold wrote : >>> Ludovico: If GtkAda 2.4.0 has been acquired before 2005/02, presumably >>> from libre2.act-europe.fr, and the past has not changed, why don't you >>> let the license as GMGPL? >> >> But I do; the switch to pure GPL will only affect future versions. > > I just want to know your opinion: Sarge contains GtkAda 2.4.0 which > you obtained at a time when AdaCore called it GMGPL software. There is > no new released version of GtkAda but now 2.4.0 is called GPL. What > version will be in Etch? The same 2.4.0 as in Sarge but under GPL > (which could also be GMGPL), 2.4.0 as downloaded today from > libre2... (which then is GPL anyway) or some newer version from CVS? A newer version from CVS, under GPL. That will be version 2.8.1, which has yet to be tagged in the repository. Since yo asked for my opinion, here it is: you can use version 2.4.0 (currently in Sarge) under the terms of the GMGPL. The change of license from AdaCore does not affect the software you get from Debian; it only affects the software I will get from AdaCore in the future. Even if that is not true, I doubt very much that AdaCore would sue anyone over this issue. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 22:13 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 22:44 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 5:55 ` Michael Bode 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-28 5:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > No, we do not learn that. AdaCore was quite specific in saying > they're not saying anything at all about the past. They were also quite specific in saying anything from their libre2 site *including* CVS is GPL. That means any old version from CVS is GPL too. There never was such a thing as GMGPL. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:57 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:12 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 22:13 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-27 22:35 ` M E Leypold 2 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > > > You can never change the past. So I do not understand what you are saying. > > I'd bet GtkAda 2.4 once was GMGPL. Ludovic Brenta thought that too. M > E Leypold had some quotes to that effect in > <ctirmmu0fc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>. > > And now we learn that GtkAda 2.4 never was under GMGPL but GPL. That's > what I call changing the past. That's what I call Orwellian. :-) Regards -- Markus (unhappy) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:34 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 19:57 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 22:34 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > Michael Bode a �crit : > > > Is it fair to change the past? > > You can never change the past. So I do not understand what you are saying. You're not up to date Pascal :-). Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:03 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 19:29 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-27 22:33 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > Markus, Pascal, I answered that in private mail (since I didn't see immediately that you also posted to c.l.a) with an additional question about the past and present license status of AWS. Quntessence of my answer was, that I'm repeating myself and tried again to clarify my point which has nothing to do with expecting "others" to get me something "for free". OS doesn't work like this IMHO. I'd like to refer anyone who is reading this to all my othe postings for more details. As I said: I'm repeating myself. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-26 19:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:03 ` Pascal Obry @ 2006-06-27 19:40 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-27 22:49 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-27 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > >> And GNAT is hardly the only low-cost compiler for those targets. > > Exactly. There are other languages. All complainers now go away and > will leave the Ada community (which has as such no issues with highly > prices compilers) alone. This being c.l.a, "compiler" means an Ada compiler. If I intend a compiler for another language, I state that explicitly. -- Jeff Carter "Many times we're given rhymes that are quite unsingable." Monty Python and the Holy Grail 57 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 19:40 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-27 22:49 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 2:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-27 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > > > >> And GNAT is hardly the only low-cost compiler for those targets. > > Exactly. There are other languages. All complainers now go away and > > will leave the Ada community (which has as such no issues with highly > > prices compilers) alone. > > This being c.l.a, "compiler" means an Ada compiler. If I intend a > compiler for another language, I state that explicitly. Oops, sorry. This was really an unintended mixup with another thread. Context overspill :-). OK. Let me rephrase: There is exactly 1 low cost compiler, that from RR sofware. AFAIS there is no Linux target (which in my context of the discussion was always a given necessity). But one compiler hardly justifies plural. Or did I overlook other offers? I'm seriously intrested in the information apart from the discussion in this thread which is already a dead horse in my eyes. Let's stop flogging it. The compiler is not an issue, there is FSF Gnat. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 22:49 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 2:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-28 5:53 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-28 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > > OK. Let me rephrase: There is exactly 1 low cost compiler, that from > RR sofware. AFAIS there is no Linux target (which in my context of the > discussion was always a given necessity). But one compiler hardly > justifies plural. Aonix is 10% of the cost of an ACT support contract, so that seems to qualify as low cost by comparison. I think they have a free version, too. I guess it depends on the definition of low cost. -- Jeff Carter "Many times we're given rhymes that are quite unsingable." Monty Python and the Holy Grail 57 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 2:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-28 5:53 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-28 12:46 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:18 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-28 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > Aonix is 10% of the cost of an ACT support contract, so that seems to > qualify as low cost by comparison. I think they have a free version, > too. I guess it depends on the definition of low cost. The free version supports up to (n ~= 35) units, which won't get you very far! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 5:53 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-06-28 12:46 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-29 20:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-28 19:18 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > > > Aonix is 10% of the cost of an ACT support contract, so that seems to > > qualify as low cost by comparison. I think they have a free version, > > too. I guess it depends on the definition of low cost. > > The free version supports up to (n ~= 35) units, which won't get you > very far! That too. I stopped reading after "is 10% of the cost of an ACT" since 5000 is not 10% of 15000. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 12:46 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-29 20:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-30 8:20 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-30 12:47 ` Marc A. Criley 0 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-29 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > > That too. I stopped reading after "is 10% of the cost of an ACT" > since 5000 is not 10% of 15000. Sorry, I remembered $1500 (which is 10% of $15000), but that's only for the Windows version. The Linux version is unaccountably much more. I guess they think people who use a free OS have more money available for compilers. -- Jeff Carter "I unclog my nose towards you." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 11 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-29 20:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-30 8:20 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-30 12:47 ` Marc A. Criley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-30 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > > That too. I stopped reading after "is 10% of the cost of an ACT" > > since 5000 is not 10% of 15000. > > Sorry, I remembered $1500 (which is 10% of $15000), but that's only Never mind. I should also have read you statement to the end. Lame excuse: It was late and I was already tired from bombing c.l.a with mails on licensing issues. > for the Windows version. The Linux version is unaccountably much > more. I guess they think people who use a free OS have more money > available for compilers. Oh certainly. May I add one thing (not as reproach on what you said, but rather continuing the free OS theme here): My skill set is primarily in unixish systems especially as far as the enviroment (available tools, shell, scripting) goes. In this ongoing discussion I got offered (more than once) compilers as subsitute which would only run on windows, have certain important libraries only for windows or are substantially more expensive on non windows platforms. But I hope one can understand that as a Unix animal I'm not looking for a windows compiler. The big advantage of Ada could be that it is really portable. I did sucessfully develop programs under Linux and just compiled them on windows. This is big plus. Or it could be. Because if you look at the compiler market, the choices become very restricted (or expensive) if one wants to compile on both platforms, develop primarily with Linux and wants more than the Ada standard library. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-29 20:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-30 8:20 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-30 12:47 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-07-01 2:20 ` Steve 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-30 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > M E Leypold wrote: > >> >> That too. I stopped reading after "is 10% of the cost of an ACT" >> since 5000 is not 10% of 15000. > > > Sorry, I remembered $1500 (which is 10% of $15000), but that's only for > the Windows version. The Linux version is unaccountably much more. I > guess they think people who use a free OS have more money available for > compilers. Though the annual maintenance [for Aonix Ada on Linux] is cheaper: $1000 vs $1495. The break-even point is in seven years. I agree that it is an odd pricing structure. -- Marc A. Criley -- McKae Technologies -- www.mckae.com -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-30 12:47 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-07-01 2:20 ` Steve 2006-07-01 8:54 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Steve @ 2006-07-01 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> wrote in message news:g39pg.434$PE1.242@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: >> M E Leypold wrote: >> >>> >>> That too. I stopped reading after "is 10% of the cost of an ACT" >>> since 5000 is not 10% of 15000. >> >> >> Sorry, I remembered $1500 (which is 10% of $15000), but that's only for >> the Windows version. The Linux version is unaccountably much more. I >> guess they think people who use a free OS have more money available for >> compilers. > > Though the annual maintenance [for Aonix Ada on Linux] is cheaper: $1000 > vs $1495. The break-even point is in seven years. I agree that it is an > odd pricing structure. > One more data point. The last time I enquired the cost was either $10000 or $12000 for 10 developer seats, and that was the minimum. But that was many years ago. We wound up going with ObjectAda at the time which was closer to $500 per developer with no minimum. At the time we also received a discount from Aonix by purchasing 5 licenses. I am in the camp of individuals who think that AdaCore should have a lower minimum, although to be fair I haven't asked recently. Steve (The Duck) > -- Marc A. Criley > -- McKae Technologies > -- www.mckae.com > -- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-07-01 2:20 ` Steve @ 2006-07-01 8:54 ` M E Leypold 2006-07-01 9:56 ` Pascal Obry 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-07-01 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw) "Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> writes: > "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> wrote in message > news:g39pg.434$PE1.242@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > >> M E Leypold wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> That too. I stopped reading after "is 10% of the cost of an ACT" > >>> since 5000 is not 10% of 15000. > >> > >> > >> Sorry, I remembered $1500 (which is 10% of $15000), but that's only for > >> the Windows version. The Linux version is unaccountably much more. I > >> guess they think people who use a free OS have more money available for > >> compilers. > > > > Though the annual maintenance [for Aonix Ada on Linux] is cheaper: $1000 > > vs $1495. The break-even point is in seven years. I agree that it is an > > odd pricing structure. > > > > One more data point. The last time I enquired the cost was either $10000 or > $12000 for 10 developer seats, and that was the minimum. But that was many You're talking about ACT's offer now? We have been talking about Aonix. > years ago. We wound up going with ObjectAda at the time which was closer to > $500 per developer with no minimum. At the time we also received a discount > from Aonix by purchasing 5 licenses. I've asked ACT and Aonix for price quotes some time around the beginning officiating 2005. That was when we did a bid on some projects where we thought the ability to fall back to a commercial compiler would perhaps come handy at least in the development stage (admittedly the idea was to use a commercial compiler during 2 years of development and maintenance and fall back to an open source compiler for maintenance when the I might remember wrongly, so take all that cautiously: - ACT just returned with a number of question (for how many people, size of your shoes etc), no price was quoted. Since I aimed for a standard package and also wanted a standard price list to give a customer an idea how much the transition to Ada (instead of C++ ...) would cost, I left it there. I gathered the > 10K fee at that time from usenet and that was enough as a lower bracket to remove ACT from the considerations in this case. - Aonix (I think) actually deigned to answer and at that time you had to buy support for 5 developers minimum (at ~ 1000.- EUR per seat). Since I'm working freelance most of the time (with changing affiliations) and don't have a splut personality I felt somewhat cheated here. By the way: Today, when I went to Aonix' site I find a PDF http://www.aonix.de/pdf/adt.pdf (which is supposedly the "AonixADT Product Line Overview"). Surprisingly I need a password to open that PDF. Seems you need a support contract to see Aonix' product line. I think both ACT and Aonix could do better in the CRM department. :-/ But to wrap it up: - ACT charges 10K - 15K minimum Since pricing seems to be highly individual (they talk about a matrix they have to decide on the price), you have to ask in every single case. - Aonix charges ~ $1000 per developer on Linux but you have to buy the windows license separately and the minimum number of seats to buy is 5 (makes it ~5000 for the smallest license on Linux). As I said I could be wrong: Those people are not very forthcoming with pricing information and I have a hard time finding any pricing list on their web pages -- perhaps they are much too used to individual government and big company contracts. This is also one of the reasons I'd really recommend RR Software (Janus Ada): They have a price list on their site, which is exactly what Mr Joe Small Developer surfing along would like to have. If representatives of the afore mentioned companies read this post I'd suggest that they just correct any mistakes and misunderstandings. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-07-01 8:54 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-07-01 9:56 ` Pascal Obry 2006-07-01 12:03 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2006-07-01 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M E Leypold M E Leypold a �crit : > I might remember wrongly, so take all that cautiously: > > - ACT just returned with a number of question (for how many people, > size of your shoes etc), no price was quoted. Since I aimed for a > standard package and also wanted a standard price list to give a > customer an idea how much the transition to Ada (instead of C++ > ...) would cost, I left it there. I gathered the > 10K fee at that > time from usenet and that was enough as a lower bracket to remove > ACT from the considerations in this case. And this is your mistake. If AdaCore asked questions it is probably to find the best arrangement between you and them! So staying with the "usenet gatrhered > 10k" is just a plain mistake... AdaCore is really listening to customers, tell them something! After that we hear so much non sense on this thread... Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-07-01 9:56 ` Pascal Obry @ 2006-07-01 12:03 ` Michael Bode 2006-07-01 12:48 ` Pascal Obry 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-07-01 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > And this is your mistake. If AdaCore asked questions it is probably to > find the best arrangement between you and them! So staying with the > "usenet gatrhered > 10k" is just a plain mistake... I asked them in 10/2005 and the price for Gnat Pro was 14000ᅵ for Windows and another 7000ᅵ if I wanted Linux too. GtkAda was an additional 7000ᅵ. Then I could get 2 additional packages (compiler for another target, Glade, AWS, ...) at no additional cost. That is for 5 developers, but if we don't have 5 developers, that's out fault. So the minimal cost for the first year for Windows + Linux + GtkAda is 28000ᅵ. > AdaCore is really listening to customers, tell them something! I told them that I would be ok with less than stellar support, like any other Visual C++ or Delphi customer gets, if I could get the packages for a more Microsoft- or Borland-like price. They told me their support is far better than Microsoft's or Borland's. That's it. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-07-01 12:03 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-07-01 12:48 ` Pascal Obry 2006-07-01 13:19 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2006-07-01 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Bode Michael Bode a ï¿œcrit : > I told them that I would be ok with less than stellar support, like any > other Visual C++ or Delphi customer gets, if I could get the packages > for a more Microsoft- or Borland-like price. They told me their > support is far better than Microsoft's or Borland's. That's it. Again I'm not on the maketing side, but to me you are just comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft or Borland are selling CD. Duplicating a CD cost just nothing (almost right?, the cost is on dev process) hence the low price for VC++ for example. AdaCore is selling support. There is no way to "duplicate" a support, each customer is different, has different needs and requirement. The cost can't be as low as VC++. Now what do you want ? A product without support as for VC++, then use the GNAT GPL, GNAT FSF, Aonix ObjectAda, Rational Ada, RR Software Janus Ada... What's wrong with that ? Use the product that fits your needs. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-07-01 12:48 ` Pascal Obry @ 2006-07-01 13:19 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-07-01 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes: > Now what do you want ? You said: > AdaCore is really listening to customers, tell them something! And I told them something. The problem obviously is: I'm not a customer. > A product without support as for VC++, then use the GNAT GPL, GNAT > FSF, VC++ can produce non GPL binaries, GNAT GPL not. GNAT FSF is ok, but there is no portable GUI library for GNAT FSF. And even using GtkAda 2.4.0 is problematic as I can't prove that the GtkAda 2.4.0 I use was downloaded before day X where X is the unknown day when GtkAda 2.4.0 started to be licensed under GPL. > Aonix ObjectAda, Rational Ada, RR Software Janus Ada... What's wrong > with that ? Use the product that fits your needs. As I said: Windows + Linux + Gtk(Ada) (or other portable GUI lib). None of the above AFAIK can offer that. Of course AdaCore can do what they want: if they're only interested in customers from 14000ᅵ/year upwards, that's fine. But then I have to look for things like GNAT FSF and old versions of GtkAda for which I hope AdaCore won't sue me if I use them and consider other options for the future (Java might be one). -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 5:53 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-28 12:46 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 19:18 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-28 22:35 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-28 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > > The free version supports up to (n ~= 35) units, which won't get you > very far! True. But it still qualifies as low cost! -- Jeff Carter "Ditto, you provincial putz?" Blazing Saddles 86 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 19:18 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-28 22:35 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes: > Simon Wright wrote: > > The free version supports up to (n ~= 35) units, which won't get you > > very far! > > True. But it still qualifies as low cost! That at least is indisputable. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... [not found] ` <n1nu92praahokl5ev7ih75j9f2t09hugt8@4ax.com> 2006-06-26 12:08 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 18:58 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-06-27 7:26 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2006-06-27 8:00 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2006-06-27 7:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Completely agree. The current licensing model of GNAT does very little to promote the growth of Ada, but brings a lot of FUD. Once again we are shooting ourselves in the foot. >>>>> "DLB" == Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: DLB> On 25 Jun 2006 22:49:48 +0200, M E Leypold DLB> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> declaimed DLB> the following in comp.lang.ada: >> >> Completely right. But: There is also the case when the customer wants >> the developer(s) to sign an NDA. Usually (happened too me) these >> customers are deeply uneasy with the GPL around. They fear (and I DLB> Don't know how cost effective it would be -- but, from my viewpoint, DLB> at least, if a customer wants an NDA in the contract negotiations, the DLB> developer could bring in the cost of the GnatPro license (with compiler DLB> system with license treated as part of the deliverables, or obtained by DLB> the customer with developer working onsite) DLB> The GPL curse applies to small independent developers seeking to DLB> produce generally marketable products -- the next Quicken, or DLB> VersaCheck, for example... Given the prohibitive cost of obtaining a DLB> closed-distribution capability for GNAT, they might easily chose to DLB> substitute some other language -- M$ C++ compiler without the DLB> VisualStudio environment appears to be available for the download; Sun's DLB> Java seems to be behind a number of applications... DLB> -- DLB> Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG DLB> wlfraed@ix.netcom.com wulfraed@bestiaria.com DLB> HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ DLB> (Bestiaria Support Staff: web-asst@bestiaria.com) DLB> HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/ -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 7:26 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2006-06-27 8:00 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-06-27 10:51 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-06-27 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 27 Jun 2006 09:26:26 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > Completely agree. The current licensing model of GNAT does very little > to promote the growth of Ada, but brings a lot of FUD. Once again we > are shooting ourselves in the foot. Are you an ACT employee? (:-)) Otherwise, agree, probably they do themselves... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-27 8:00 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-06-27 10:51 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2006-06-27 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw) No. Sorry about the 'we', I was thinking about the Ada community as a whole. My employer is rather actively pushing Java :-) >>>>> "DAK" == Dmitry A Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: DAK> On 27 Jun 2006 09:26:26 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: >> Completely agree. The current licensing model of GNAT does very little >> to promote the growth of Ada, but brings a lot of FUD. Once again we >> are shooting ourselves in the foot. DAK> Are you an ACT employee? (:-)) Otherwise, agree, probably they do DAK> themselves... DAK> -- DAK> Regards, DAK> Dmitry A. Kazakov DAK> http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 21:07 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-25 17:50 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2006-06-28 19:03 ` Niklas Holsti 2006-06-28 19:42 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 22:34 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Niklas Holsti @ 2006-06-28 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrote: > Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > >> Slipping in from the side... A non-support, run-time distribution, >>license in the $200 range would probably get a lot of takers (price >>range varying depending upon upgrade procedure > > > I'd be one, let's say somewhere below 1000ᅵ for the GPL Edition with > GMGPL licensing. I second (or third :-) that. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ . ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 19:03 ` Niklas Holsti @ 2006-06-28 19:42 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 22:34 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Niklas Holsti <nobody@nowhere.fi> writes: > Michael Bode wrote: >> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: >> >> >>> Slipping in from the side... A non-support, run-time distribution, >>>license in the $200 range would probably get a lot of takers (price >>>range varying depending upon upgrade procedure >> >> >> I'd be one, let's say somewhere below 1000€ for the GPL Edition with >> GMGPL licensing. > > I second (or third :-) that. I suggest y'all file support requests and join the GNU Ada project. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-28 19:03 ` Niklas Holsti 2006-06-28 19:42 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-28 22:34 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-28 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) http://www.oss-in-atm.info/20051207/09-gasperoni.php "There is a case in the community: wouldn't it be nice if AdaCore provided support for a single developer for 500 euro, but we know that isn't going to fly. And we said, "Fine, if somebody else wants to take it up, fine, we don't think that business will survive for a long time." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... [not found] ` <rntq9299uobutv707i07gqi87oeba18e63@4ax.com> 2006-06-24 21:07 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-25 11:55 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-25 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > Slipping in from the side... A non-support, run-time distribution, > license in the $200 range would probably get a lot of takers (price > range varying depending upon upgrade procedure -- a > one-time/major-version fee could be higher than one that must be paid > just to download a bug-patch release) The GNAT compiler depends fairly intimately on the runtime, I think, so it would be hard to produce something independent; the compiler team could at any time change the interface, there's no independent interface definition. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 10:01 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 11:32 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 11:41 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 12:38 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 12:58 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 12:45 ` Marius Amado-Alves 2 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Creem @ 2006-06-24 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrote: > Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > > >>This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it >>really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the >>GPL. > > > If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that > Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily > create a 'derived work' of Microsoft Windows(TM) by writing any > program that uses any Windows DLL. And you don't have to stick > Microsoft's EULA to it, you can even licence it under GPL. > Which is why I indicated that this was under the strictest interpretations of the GPL. I am not indicating what would "stand up in court" but I am telling you what I believe is the FSF position. If you take something like the GNU scientific library and dynamically link to it would be seen as trying to work around the GPL and not seen as trying to meet the intent of the license since if that is what the authors wanted, they would have gone with the LGPL for that library. The question of whether or not it is more or less free than a microsoft EULA is irrelevant because the "free" here is the FSF version of free which has almost nothing to do with what everyone seems to want it to mean. FSF free is intended to use copyright law to whenever possible force authors to release their software as "free" whenever they release their software. Anyone that thinks that the intention of the GPL is anything other than that is totally missing the point of the FSF. Note this is specifically why the LGPL was changed from library GPL to lesser GPL because people were too often just assuming that all libraries should use the LGPL and thus there were not enough cases where people were forced to release their code under "free" terms. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 11:41 ` Jeffrey Creem @ 2006-06-24 12:38 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-25 21:28 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-24 12:58 ` Michael Bode 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > Michael Bode wrote: > > Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > > > >>This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it > >>really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the > >> GPL. > > If dynamic linking constitutes a 'derived work' this would mean that > > Microsoft's EULA is in fact much more 'Free' than GPL. You can easily > > create a 'derived work' of Microsoft Windows(TM) by writing any > > program that uses any Windows DLL. And you don't have to stick > > Microsoft's EULA to it, you can even licence it under GPL. > > > The question of whether or not it is more or less free than a > microsoft EULA is irrelevant because the "free" here is the FSF > version of free which has almost nothing to do with what everyone > seems to want it to mean. Not quite. The FSF is offering also the LGPL (and they are using it for Glibc and the Gcc runtime, BTW. Meditate about that). Since it's not FSF offering the libraries in question, it's not the FSF concept of "free" that is at issue here, but the concept of people offering libraries under GPL. There is no pointing to the FSF here. After all one (as a library author) can freely decide between GPL, LGPL and GMGPL. Its their right to offer libraries under GPL. OK. But they must also stand the statement that (in a library) that implies less freedom and that it is their doing not the FSF's. And if one goes further they must also stand the question why they are doing that. But the FSF, after all, has nothing todo with the GPL-releases of Gnat. > Anyone that thinks that the intention of the GPL is anything other > than that is totally missing the point of the FSF. No. It would be missing the intentions of folks which release libraries under GPL. > Note this is specifically why the LGPL was changed from library GPL to > lesser GPL because people were too often just assuming that all > libraries should use the LGPL and thus there were not enough cases > where people were forced to release their code under "free" terms. "forced to release". I think I can rest my case here. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:38 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 14:13 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 21:28 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold wrote: > > Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: >> The question of whether or not it is more or less free than a >> microsoft EULA is irrelevant because the "free" here is the FSF >> version of free which has almost nothing to do with what everyone >> seems to want it to mean. > > Not quite. The FSF is offering also the LGPL (and they are using it > for Glibc and the Gcc runtime, BTW. Meditate about that). The FSF released the runtime with its license after much deliberation, and they emphasize that they prefer plain GPL, even for libraries. > There is no pointing to the FSF here. After all one (as a library > author) can freely decide between GPL, LGPL and GMGPL. Its their right > to offer libraries under GPL. OK. But they must also stand the > statement that (in a library) that implies less freedom From the perspective of the author of a GPLed library, the GPL implies *more* freedom, *not* less, because library derived works will be freely available. Anything else will indeed be against the intent of the GPL which is stated in the Preamble, "to make sure the software is free for all its users" (by way of forcing derived works to be GPL, too). From the FAQ at libre.adacore.com: | ... | GNAT GPL Edition | Intended users | ... | Free Software developers -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 14:13 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > M E Leypold wrote: > Anything else will indeed be against the intent of the GPL which is > stated in the Preamble, "to make sure the software is free for all > its users" (by way of forcing derived works to be GPL, too). Well. We're still talking about a compiler here? Than -- Gnat will stay free for all it's users even if one would write closed source software with it. That one can _buy_ the freedom to write unfree software seems to specially obnoxious if we stay with the moral argument that it is good to write free software and that one must be forced to write only free software with a free tool. So my users freedom has a simple price tag: 15K/year. Cheap that, actually. Let's put it plain: ACT is using GPL as business weapon. If the ACT compiler would be the only available one at the market I'd call their Acdemic offer "bait", since you could only exercise the skill set by generating revenue for them. But since there is another compiler, I'll now cease arguing about GPL Gnat. That was never my issue, they are free to do with their compiler what they want. I'm free to use FSF Gnat or go to another language. The library situation (not the Gnat GPL runtime, whose GPL licensing is only a legal trick, but I'm talking about Florist and GtkAda, perhaps other libs as well) is another issue and a repeat: It's hursting the community. All Ada advocacy is in vain, if there are no (commercially usable) OS bindings or bindings to a common and portable graphical toolkit. People (small businesses, either software developers or small engineering companies for their internal tools) will use what is available without strings attached. No use pining in c.l.a about the abundance of badly written, unsecure C and C++ software and how much better Ada could do, then. Some other communites also have the problem of "being forced" to write free software. Others don't. I wonder how the last kind can cope, if it is necessary to lock tool use and library use down to "only with free and open software". And please note, that I'm an advocate of free software. But I can hardly justify contributing back to the community in my working time if the license situation excludes me from using (i.e.) libraries in a project. I even don't complain about that, if a library has been GPL from the beginning. About what I really complain, is that libraries seem to change there license and underhandedly at that. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:38 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-25 21:28 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-25 21:42 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 15:59 ` Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-25 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > But the FSF, after all, has nothing todo with the GPL-releases of Gnat. Quite a lot of the sources of the GNAT runtime say (c) FSF. Not that you can place any reliance on that, of course. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-25 21:28 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-06-25 21:42 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 15:59 ` Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-25 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > > > But the FSF, after all, has nothing todo with the GPL-releases of Gnat. > > Quite a lot of the sources of the GNAT runtime say (c) FSF. Not that See on of my other posts on that. What I wanted to say: It was not the FSF forcing a license change from GMGPL to GPL. So no need to point to the FSF as a reason for that. But didn't I say I won't discuss Gnat GPL any more? So ... > you can place any reliance on that, of course. Nooo, nooo. Of course, not. But let's not forget: That was only a rumour coming from a quote probably quoted a bit outside of its original context. I'd like to see anyone (ACT especially) try to pull that: That the file header wouldn't mean anything and the files are actually God-knows-whose. I don't think that is likely to happen or even have success, so I'm not going to get all steamed up on that one. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-25 21:28 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-25 21:42 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-26 15:59 ` Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2006-06-26 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright wrote: > M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> > writes: > >> But the FSF, after all, has nothing todo with the GPL-releases of Gnat. > > Quite a lot of the sources of the GNAT runtime say (c) FSF. Not that > you can place any reliance on that, of course. The GNAT sources themself are not the problem as gcc 4.1.1 is pretty good as well. It's the other libraries which AdaCore supplies. And a little reminder: They are all separate products at AdaCore. If your pay up your $/ᅵ 15.000 then you get one year/five programmer support for the compiler only. No ASIS, No Florist, No PolyORB, no XML/Ada - they all cost extra. Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 11:41 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 12:38 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 12:58 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 13:21 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 14:33 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > If you take something like the GNU scientific library and dynamically > link to it would be seen as trying to work around the GPL and not seen > as trying to meet the intent of the license since if that is what the > authors wanted, they would have gone with the LGPL for that library. Then I would like to hear what the FSF thinks 'using a library' is as opposed to 'derive work from a library'. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:58 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 13:21 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 14:39 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 14:33 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode wrote: > I would like to hear what the FSF thinks 'using a library' is as > opposed to 'derive work from a library'. "derivative work" and "use" are legal terms, best explained by legal professionals. The discussions of whether or not which constitutes what have been lengthy, and IIRC usually suffered from mixing everyday notions of "use", "derive", etc., with their relevant meaning in licensing contracts. -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 13:21 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 14:39 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes: > Michael Bode wrote: > > > I would like to hear what the FSF thinks 'using a library' is as > > opposed to 'derive work from a library'. > > "derivative work" and "use" are legal terms, best explained by > legal professionals. > > The discussions of whether or not which constitutes what have been > lengthy, and IIRC usually suffered from mixing everyday notions > of "use", "derive", etc., with their relevant meaning in licensing > contracts. IANAL, IANAL, IANAL. I'd also add, that "license" is AFAIK (IANAL) no legal notion in some countries. I have been informed that it is something that exists in US law but as thus and under this name not in German law (i.e.). There is still copyright and the GPL (for instance) has binding force, because of copyright law, but the word license is not found in the BGB. My impression (IANAL) was that whatever corresponds to licensing during distribution in Germany doesn't fall under contract law, but under copyright law. But IANAL. Regards .. Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:58 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 13:21 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 14:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 11:22 ` Samuel Tardieu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > > > If you take something like the GNU scientific library and dynamically > > link to it would be seen as trying to work around the GPL and not seen > > as trying to meet the intent of the license since if that is what the > > authors wanted, they would have gone with the LGPL for that library. > > Then I would like to hear what the FSF thinks 'using a library' is as > opposed to 'derive work from a library'. Good question. The FSF (whose point of view actually has zero impact on the discussion about GPL software from ACT, since it's not the FSF forcing ACT in any way to use GPL ...) has, with regard to the GPL, probably the opinion that linking means "derive a work". I, personally think, that has historic reasons. When the GPL was conceived, dynamic linking hardly existed. The LGPL has been formulated as a response to situations like those that arouse with bison: Essentially we have program generator, but since it introduces pieces of own code (read runtime) into the generated code, that leads to contamination of everything produced with bison. The FSF has IMHO not addressed the issue of merely using an interface, which is already present at the target system (like the libc) not even in GPL 3. I think, that should constitute a case where the executable doesn't fall under GPL automatically. Saying that using a machine readable interface description (like C header files) already makes a derived work is obviously absurd. Some rudiments of that kind of thinking can actually be found in the exception to distribution clause (don't have do distribute stuff already present at the target system). Some other examples if anybody actually wants to argue against: - I taught a number of people Software Engineering. My texts were available under the FDL (Free documentation license). Should I have made GPL from that? Everything those people produce in future is a derived work of my knowledge. - When compiling on a linux system, The libc headers indirectly include (at compile time) headers from //usr/include/linux which AFAIS come from the Linux source tree, which is under GPL. Does that mean, every excutable compiled on a Linux system is under GPL? I could continue her, but (wether there is provision for that in the GPL or not), I'd suggest that for sanities sake there should be limits: "Use" vs. "Creating a derived Work". For everybody who has studied computer since, the difference should be clear: Interface vs. Implementation. That is not the GPL philosophy, but that is why the author of any library or tool has the option to put runtime or library under LGPL or add a linking exception. Those who don't want that, are free (!) to not do that. They are even free not to release anything BTW. But if they choose GPL over LGPL or GMGPL or whatever I don't want to hear all that stuff about "more freedom". It's not, not even in the sense of the GNU manifesto (reducing dependencies ...!). It's an attempt (completely legal) to lock a library away from commercial use. I, personally, doubt the value of forced contributions of free software to the community. Have a look to the BSD communities for a comparison. And still I'm for free software and for the GPL (in the right context). Mind that. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 14:33 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-25 11:22 ` Samuel Tardieu 2006-06-25 11:55 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2006-06-25 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "MEL" == M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: MEL> Good question. The FSF (whose point of view actually has zero MEL> impact on the discussion about GPL software from ACT, since it's MEL> not the FSF forcing ACT in any way to use GPL ...) has, with MEL> regard to the GPL, probably the opinion that linking means MEL> "derive a work". Most of the GNAT runtime is owned by the FSF. A small part if owned by AdaCore. Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-25 11:22 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 2006-06-25 11:55 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-25 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> writes: > >>>>> "MEL" == M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > > MEL> Good question. The FSF (whose point of view actually has zero > MEL> impact on the discussion about GPL software from ACT, since it's > MEL> not the FSF forcing ACT in any way to use GPL ...) has, with > MEL> regard to the GPL, probably the opinion that linking means > MEL> "derive a work". > > Most of the GNAT runtime is owned by the FSF. Oops yes. Oversight on my side. I should say: The FSF didn't force ACT to drop the linking exception. But this was only an aside. The discussion surrounding my answer had already drifted in wider areas, which I'd like to paraphrase as "how can linking constitute a derived work". To which I just craved to give some opinions of my own (a - that I don't think it should be in all cases, b - from where I think that position of the GPL originally came). Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 10:01 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 11:32 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 11:41 ` Jeffrey Creem @ 2006-06-24 12:45 ` Marius Amado-Alves 2 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado-Alves @ 2006-06-24 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Remember that if you distribute your work in source code form you are not bound by the GPL. That is, suppose you write program P that depends on GPLed unit G. You deliver P in source code form only and without redistributing G (in any form) alongside. This distribution is not required to be under GPL. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 0:08 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 10:01 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 11:16 ` M E Leypold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes: > Michael Bode wrote: > > "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > > > >>>But the application programmer *is* the user of the compiler. > >> > >>The question was not about the compiler, it was about the run-time > >>library. > > I thought the problem arises if one instantiates generics. This is > > usage of an Ada compiler. I also thought the run-time could be linked > > dynamically and thus be distributed separate. For now I'm fine with > > gnat 3.15p, but maybe that also doesn't work for me licence-wise as... > > > > > This is not correct. If the runtime is GPL. Dynamically linking to it > really does not help under the strictest interpretations of the > GPL. You are thinking that some portion of the runtime is LGPL. > It is not. It is GPL with a linking/generics exception (in the case of > old GNAT <=3.15 releases and FSF derived GCC releases) which is > actually slightly more permissive than the LGPL. Only that relicensing from LGPL -> GPL is almost impossible (w/o agreement of _all_ copyright holders, which also would include contributors of significant patches, so just read that as: impossible) whereas the substamce of the discussion last hear in this very newsgroup seems to be that there seems nothing to keep a distributor to just strip the linking exceaption in a derived work. I'd be happy to hear otherwise. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-23 17:24 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 0:08 ` Jeffrey Creem @ 2006-06-24 11:12 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 21:37 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 12:49 ` gshapovalov 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > ...in an related thread there is a discussion of the license for > GtkAda. I just looked at some source files of the CVS Version > (https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/GtkAda/) and they still read: > > ... > -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from -- > ... > > If this means you need a written statement signed by Robert Dewar to > be sure you won't be sued by Adacore if you use it in a CSS project, > then probably I better read that Java book on my bookshelf. (I'm not > the one who decides what licence my code has, I'm only the one who > decides what language it is written in.) That exactly was my problem here after hearing the quote in question. My _original_ problem was, that ACT doesn't state the copyright situation on their libre-site, and that the available sources have the GMGPL header in the ada files but not mentioning of a linking exception in COPYING or README (compare that with florist (3.15p or prior), which states the linking exception very clearly in the README, which would be the traditional place to do). So the actual licensing is somewhat unclear especially in the recent historical context of ACT having acquired the habit to change licenses to GPL. I'll not try to assess this situation yet, until I have done more research. But if you want to have an opportunity to get some ugly ideas on your own, just diff the "GPL" florist sources distributed from the ACT site against the the 3.15p florist sources. Don't forget to throw away Makefile*, INSTALL*, README* and configure* first since they would have no impact on the license and configure is automatically generated and accounst for around half the size of the diff. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 11:12 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 21:37 ` Michael Bode 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > My _original_ problem was, that ACT doesn't state the copyright > situation on their libre-site, and that the available sources have the > GMGPL header in the ada files but not mentioning of a linking > exception in COPYING or README (compare that with florist (3.15p or > prior), which states the linking exception very clearly in the README, > which would be the traditional place to do). Just downloaded GtkAda 2.2.1 which listed as GMGPL at freshmeat. The README says: Disclaimer ========== GtkAda is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. GtkAda is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY -- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General -- Public License distributed with GtkAda; see file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, -- MA 02111-1307, USA. Looks like this hasn't changed a bit since version 0.1 of GtkAda. So the questions is: has there ever been a public GMGPL version of GtkAda? Has anyone a written legally binding piece of paper signed by Robert Dewar to prove it? And does he have a proof that Dewar is authorized to sign such a paper? After all the AUTHORS file says: AUTHORS ======= The authors of GtkAda are Emmanuel Briot <briot@gnat.com> Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com> Arnaud Charlet <charlet@gnat.com> And by the way: how am I supposed to know if GNAT GPL Edition is really GPLed software? Did anyone who downloaded it get a piece of paper signed by Robert Dewar which says so? -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-23 17:24 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 0:08 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 11:12 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 12:49 ` gshapovalov 2006-06-24 13:10 ` Michael Bode ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: gshapovalov @ 2006-06-24 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw) I am sorry for the repetition, but I feel I have to make it clear again.. Michael Bode wrote: > ...in an related thread there is a discussion of the license for > GtkAda. I just looked at some source files of the CVS Version > (https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/GtkAda/) and they still read: > > ... > -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from -- > ... Exactly because of this clause still in the specs and no COPYING provided and somewhere in some file (not normally expected place) there was a statement that is is *GPL* I contacted GtkAda developers to clarify this (when I was repackaging GtkAda for Gentoo). This is the responce I got: -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Arnaud Charlet <charlet@adacore.com> To: George Shapovalov <george@gentoo.org> Date: 19.5.06 10.20 George, All the packages available in libre.adacore.com are available under the pure GPL license, this includes among others GtkAda and XML/Ada. Regards, Arno ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't think he could have been any more explicit in his responce. So, it seems GtkAga and everything coming from AdaCore is pure GPL or commercial nowadays.. (closely matching the Trolltech situation at the moment AFAICS). If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources.. George ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:49 ` gshapovalov @ 2006-06-24 13:10 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 13:27 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 13:55 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) gshapovalov@gmail.com writes: >> ... >> -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from -- >> ... > > Exactly because of this clause still in the specs and no COPYING > provided and somewhere in some file (not normally expected place) there > was a statement that is is *GPL* I contacted GtkAda developers to > clarify this (when I was repackaging GtkAda for Gentoo). This is the > responce I got: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Arnaud Charlet <charlet@adacore.com> > To: George Shapovalov <george@gentoo.org> > Date: 19.5.06 10.20 > > George, > > All the packages available in libre.adacore.com are available under > the pure GPL license, this includes among others GtkAda and XML/Ada. > > Regards, > > Arno > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I don't think he could have been any more explicit in his responce. So, > it seems GtkAga and everything coming from AdaCore is pure GPL or > commercial nowadays.. > (closely matching the Trolltech situation at the moment AFAICS). IMO this means they would be actively deceiving users of GtkAda about the licence in probably any (haven't checked that) source file. -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:49 ` gshapovalov 2006-06-24 13:10 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 13:27 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 14:06 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 15:40 ` george 2006-06-24 13:55 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 2 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) gshapovalov@gmail.com writes: > I am sorry for the repetition, but I feel I have to make it clear > again.. > > Michael Bode wrote: > > ...in an related thread there is a discussion of the license for > > GtkAda. I just looked at some source files of the CVS Version > > (https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/GtkAda/) and they still read: > > > > ... > > -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from -- > > ... > > Exactly because of this clause still in the specs and no COPYING > provided and somewhere in some file (not normally expected place) there > was a statement that is is *GPL* I contacted GtkAda developers to > clarify this (when I was repackaging GtkAda for Gentoo). This is the > responce I got: Ah. thanks. That's the first response I see to my question which might shed some light om the issue and is not based on generic legal IANAL-advice or rumours. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Arnaud Charlet <charlet@adacore.com> > To: George Shapovalov <george@gentoo.org> > Date: 19.5.06 10.20 > > George, > > All the packages available in libre.adacore.com are available under > the pure GPL license, this includes among others GtkAda and XML/Ada. > > Regards, > > Arno I don't think that's specific enough. He ist just talking about "package". The distributables in question are (for me): - GtkAda 2.4.0, Source as from libre (no license on site). - GtkAda 2.4.0, Win32 executables from libre (no license on site). - GtkAda 2.2.1, as advertised on freshmeat (as GMGPL!) and still served - GtkAda Sources, various versions, as distributed via anon CVS from libre. - Finally: The single files in all versions above which carry a GMGPL copyright header. If one where to strip all build mechanisms from the original GtkAda and just use the *.ads and *.adb files to build a new binding: Would that be GMGPL? The question still is: Was GtkAda ever under GMGPL? In which sense? What was the last GMGPL version (ACT doesn't document that very clearly). > I don't think he could have been any more explicit in his responce. So, He could have been more specific. > it seems GtkAga and everything coming from AdaCore is pure GPL or > commercial nowadays.. > (closely matching the Trolltech situation at the moment AFAICS). Only that Trolltech AFAIR has a linking exception for QT? > If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting > AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources.. I might just do that. I'll keep all informed. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 13:27 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 14:06 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 14:48 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 15:40 ` george 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes: > The question still is: Was GtkAda ever under GMGPL? In which sense? > What was the last GMGPL version (ACT doesn't document that very clearly). And how can that be proofed, when Adacore denies what they write in the source files? -- Michael Bode ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 14:06 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 14:48 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes: > M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes : > > > The question still is: Was GtkAda ever under GMGPL? In which sense? > > What was the last GMGPL version (ACT doesn't document that very clearly). > > And how can that be proofed, when Adacore denies what they write in > the source files? :-] That actually was my acute fear when I read that Rober Dewar quote. It was not my intention to trigger such a lengthy and heated discussion on licenses (of all things), but only to get some preliminary information (and pointers to perhaps documents which reflect license changes) here before writing to ACT. Obviously though, the situation is actually murky and my initial confusion is not my fault. That's comforting. The actual situation becomes less and less comforting, but never mind that for now. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 13:27 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 14:06 ` Michael Bode @ 2006-06-24 15:40 ` george 2006-06-24 16:24 ` Ludovic Brenta ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: george @ 2006-06-24 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw) (Sorry if this comes as a dupe - the session died while posting. Does anybody know of a public news server that allows to post?) M E Leypold wrote: > I don't think that's specific enough. He ist just talking about Then just write to him and pose all these questions ;). I am not the right person to ask as I am technically "just spreading rumors" :). > "package". The distributables in question are (for me): > > - GtkAda 2.4.0, Source as from libre (no license on site). This is the one I was referring to in my email, so you may take the meaning of that responce as concerning this version. > - GtkAda 2.4.0, Win32 executables from libre (no license on site). The GPL talks about distribution of sources and binaries, so whatever is produced from above sources should be covered (it is a derivative work technically).. > - GtkAda 2.2.1, as advertised on freshmeat (as GMGPL!) and still served > > - GtkAda Sources, various versions, as distributed via anon CVS from libre. These you should ask about. > - Finally: The single files in all versions above which carry a GMGPL > copyright header. If one where to strip all build mechanisms from > the original GtkAda and just use the *.ads and *.adb files to build > a new binding: Would that be GMGPL? No, you cannot simply strip all other pointers to legal information or otherwise. The exception clauses were left there simply because they did not bother so far to strip them. This is the fragment from his response to my next email talking about some of this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > However I can see the individual source files still have that exception > clause. (Source was obtained from > https://libre2.adacore.com/GtkAda/ > couple of days ago). Perhaps it should be removed then Right, that's a desirable thing to do, which we will do at some point. > I could sed these lines out of the installed files, but > 1. I do not think I am legally in position to do this, > 2. I would rather not touch the sources unnecessarily.. Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source files have no real legal value anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The question still is: Was GtkAda ever under GMGPL? In which sense? > What was the last GMGPL version (ACT doesn't document that very clearly). It most definitely was, the change to GPL is recent. However I only started cleaning up Ada in Gentoo recently, so I cannot comment on particulars. > > (closely matching the Trolltech situation at the moment AFAICS). > > Only that Trolltech AFAIR has a linking exception for QT? No, it does not, the situation is very much the same now. In fact I suspect this transition to GPL may have been influenced by Trolltech's example (they also had somewhat obscure licensing scheme in the beginning, but transitioned to GPL/commercial as of some years ago). > > If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting > > AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources.. > > I might just do that. I'll keep all informed. Right, I hope they finally clean the sources up and we don't have these questions coming up every month, like t is now :). George ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 15:40 ` george @ 2006-06-24 16:24 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-24 17:51 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 16:26 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 21:09 ` Simon Wright 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-24 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) George Shapovalov writes: > M E Leypold wrote: >> > If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting >> > AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources.. >> >> I might just do that. I'll keep all informed. > > Right, I hope they finally clean the sources up and we don't have these > questions coming up every month, like t is now :). I have sent them an email and I'm awaiting a response, which I will use for the future Debian packages. Please feel free to ask for yourself, too. Receiving many emails asking the same question should prompt them to clarify the situation and clean up the confusion they've created. And at the same time, that'll show them that there are people out there who really care. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 16:24 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-24 17:51 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes: > George Shapovalov writes: > > M E Leypold wrote: > >> > If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting > >> > AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources.. > >> > >> I might just do that. I'll keep all informed. > > > > Right, I hope they finally clean the sources up and we don't have these > > questions coming up every month, like t is now :). > > I have sent them an email and I'm awaiting a response, which I will > use for the future Debian packages. > > Please feel free to ask for yourself, too. Receiving many emails I will. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 15:40 ` george 2006-06-24 16:24 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-24 16:26 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 21:09 ` Simon Wright 2 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw) "george" <gshapovalov@gmail.com> writes: > (Sorry if this comes as a dupe - the session died while posting. Does > anybody know of a public news server that allows to post?) > > M E Leypold wrote: > > I don't think that's specific enough. He ist just talking about > Then just write to him and pose all these questions ;). I am not the > right person to ask as I am technically "just spreading rumors" :). I will. Nonetheless, your answer was useful. As I explained in another post, I just wanted to ask c.l.a wether there are any sources/documents on the licensing question I have overlooked (like "That articleof Jan 2005 from Robert Dewar which clarified all this questions once and for all" :-)). It seems that not. > > > "package". The distributables in question are (for me): > > > > - GtkAda 2.4.0, Source as from libre (no license on site). > This is the one I was referring to in my email, so you may take the > meaning of that responce as concerning this version. > > > - GtkAda 2.4.0, Win32 executables from libre (no license on site). > The GPL talks about distribution of sources and binaries, so whatever > is produced from above sources should be covered (it is a derivative > work technically). Covered by what? That's the question. I mean: There is a strong indication that GtkAda at least _was_ once GMGPL and exactly that source is available from libre via CVS. So "all packages", whatever is meant by "package" seems to be a bit too inclusive. Also the 2.4.0 source still have the same COPYING and file headers as the older GTkAda sources, so why they are suddenly GPL? > > - GtkAda 2.2.1, as advertised on freshmeat (as GMGPL!) and still served > > > > - GtkAda Sources, various versions, as distributed via anon CVS from libre. > These you should ask about. > > > - Finally: The single files in all versions above which carry a GMGPL > > copyright header. If one where to strip all build mechanisms from > > the original GtkAda and just use the *.ads and *.adb files to build > > a new binding: Would that be GMGPL? > No, you cannot simply strip all other pointers to legal information or > otherwise. The exception clauses were left there simply because they > did not bother so far to strip them. This is the fragment from his > response to my next email talking about some of this: I did not talk about "stripping pointers to legal information". I talked about picking single files, which IMHO and as such (but IANAL) fall under the GMGPL from the supposedly GPLed GtkAda package. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > However I can see the individual source files still have that exception > > clause. (Source was obtained from > > https://libre2.adacore.com/GtkAda/ > > couple of days ago). Perhaps it should be removed then > > Right, that's a desirable thing to do, which we will do at some point. > > > I could sed these lines out of the installed files, but > > 1. I do not think I am legally in position to do this, > > 2. I would rather not touch the sources unnecessarily.. > > Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source > files have > no real legal value anyway. Again that fiction. We will see. > > The question still is: Was GtkAda ever under GMGPL? In which sense? > > What was the last GMGPL version (ACT doesn't document that very clearly). > It most definitely was, the change to GPL is recent. However I only > started cleaning up Ada in Gentoo recently, so I cannot comment on > particulars. Well, well. (Shaking my head). > > > > (closely matching the Trolltech situation at the moment AFAICS). > > > > Only that Trolltech AFAIR has a linking exception for QT? > No, it does not, the situation is very much the same now. In fact I > suspect this transition to GPL may have been influenced by Trolltech's > example (they also had somewhat obscure licensing scheme in the > beginning, but transitioned to GPL/commercial as of some years ago). > > > If anybody has any further questions I strongly suggest contacting > > > AdaCore directly and making another case to clean-up their sources. > > I might just do that. I'll keep all informed. > Right, I hope they finally clean the sources up and we don't have these > questions coming up every month, like t is now :). Dis we have the GtkAda wuestion coming up already? I don't had the impression. I'm reading c.l.a. now for quite some time and must have missed that. Especially since Debian distributes GtkAda 2.4.0 as GMGPL and 2.2.1 is still advertised at freshmeat as GMGPL I can't imagine that the licensing of GtkAda has been discussed excessively yet. Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 15:40 ` george 2006-06-24 16:24 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-24 16:26 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-25 21:09 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-25 21:31 ` M E Leypold 2 siblings, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2006-06-25 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw) "george" <gshapovalov@gmail.com> writes (quoting an AdaCore person): > Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source > files have no real legal value anyway. I don't suppose that has been tested in court either. Here are all of us non-lawyers assuming that a company such as AdaCore, led by an expert in software copyright issues, would take the trouble to get its publicly-visible statements related to copyright consistent. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-25 21:09 ` Simon Wright @ 2006-06-25 21:31 ` M E Leypold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: M E Leypold @ 2006-06-25 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > "george" <gshapovalov@gmail.com> writes (quoting an AdaCore person): > > > Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source > > files have no real legal value anyway. > > I don't suppose that has been tested in court either. Here are all of > us non-lawyers assuming that a company such as AdaCore, led by an > expert in software copyright issues, would take the trouble to get its > publicly-visible statements related to copyright consistent. One would also think, that they would state the copyright _clearly_ at the distribution site, and state the copyright in the README file. One is mistaken in thinking so. A good example of stating copyrights clearly everyhwere is florist 3.15p where the linking exception is not only in the file headers, but again in the README. It is also usual if someone packages files with different licenses, to give a clear explanation (usually in the README file) that single files are under a different license ("refer to the file headers"). One would also expect that it is a big no-no to strip parts of copyright headers where one didn't change anything (apart from removing a default keyword) and to add a rather all-inclusive copyright to files that weren't changed. One is also mistaken in thinking so. One could stipulate that all this muddying of the situational waters, so to say, is actually done on some purpose. One could speculate on the purpose. :-] Regards -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-24 12:49 ` gshapovalov 2006-06-24 13:10 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 13:27 ` M E Leypold @ 2006-06-24 13:55 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-24 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) gshapovalov@gmail.com wrote: >> ... >> -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from -- >> ... > > Exactly because of this clause still in the specs and no COPYING > provided and somewhere in some file (not normally expected place) there > was a statement that is is *GPL* I contacted GtkAda developers to > clarify this (when I was repackaging GtkAda for Gentoo). This is the > responce I got: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Arnaud Charlet <charlet@adacore.com> > To: George Shapovalov <george@gentoo.org> > Date: 19.5.06 10.20 > > George, > > All the packages available in libre.adacore.com are available under > the pure GPL license, this includes among others GtkAda and XML/Ada. > > Regards, > > Arno > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I don't think he could have been any more explicit in his responce. So, > it seems GtkAga and everything coming from AdaCore is pure GPL or > commercial nowadays.. I don't think his words are suitable for legal determinism, for a number of reasons. Among these are: what is "package", does "*availabble* under the pure GPL" imply "available under nothing else", etc. Does relevant law say something about good faith and the exception clause etc. etc.. I'm not saying that he has not meant that all AdaCore software is available to non-customers at libre only under the terms of the GPL, without exception. These words should be spoken and dealt with by lawyers, if there is really a need. Maybe AdaCore employees are really nice people and won't hunt you if you do something wrong legally, and sort things out in a satisfactory manner. The readme.txt file in the GPL edition of AWS still has the sentence "AWS is distributed under the GMGPL (GNAT Modified GPL) license." I don't think it means a thing, but it might be a documentation bug. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-19 1:05 can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions klobert 2006-06-19 8:32 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2006-06-19 10:16 ` Stephen Leake 2006-06-19 10:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 115+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2006-06-19 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw) klobert <klobert@sbcglobal.net> writes: > I am looking for some clear information related with ada compiler > licensing. Then you are probably in the wrong place. The only place to get reliable information on legal issues is from a lawyer, or from the compiler vendors. But that doesn't stop the rest of us from chiming in :). > Is it possible to build commercial applications without releasing > the source code using latest "libre" version of gnat ? You are probably not using "commercial" to mean what I think it means. "commercial" means "making money". So yes, you can make money without releasing source code that is under the GPL license; you sell the service of running your code, rather than selling the code or binaries produced from it. But you probably meant: "can I sell binaries without source code, if compiled with GNAT GPL-2006" The answer to that is "no", because the binaries will contain the compiler runtime, which is licensed under the Gnu GPL, which requires source code distribution. > Or is it necessary to buy a $15K commercial license from adacore in > order to build commercial applications ? That is one choice. It is highly recommended. Note that you are actually buying a support contract, and their support is excellent. > What's the difference in license between gcc ada and gnat ? I'll assume by 'gcc ada' you mean the official Free Software Foundation distribution of the GNAT compiler in the GCC (Gnu Compiler Collection). And by 'gnat' you mean the public release GNAT GPL-2006. The gcc ada runtime has the GMGPL license, which means it does _not_ require you to distribute source code with binaries. The GNAT GPL-2006 runtime has the GPL license, which does require you to distribute source code with binaries. > What's the difference in functionality between these: (gnat, > gccada3.44, gccada4.1.0 ? ) They nominally contain the _same_ compiler, but they are slightly different because of release cycles. A major difference is that some of the tools that are in GNAT GPL-2006 are not in gcc ada; notably ASIS, and the debugger may not be Ada-aware (depending on exactly how your distribution is configured). Also, the GNAT public releases are more reliable (more thoroughly tested). That's because the gcc release cycle does _not_ wait for Ada compiler issues, while the GNAT public release cycle does. That may become less of an issue over time. I believe gcc ada 4.1.0 has the same Ada 2005 features as GNAT GPL-2005, but I'm not sure. gcc ada 3.4.4 has no Ada 2005 features. > What happened to the Eclat compiler ? Never heard of it. There is a SourceForge project for it, but no downloads. Writing a useful Ada compiler is several man-years of work, so I doubt that will ever get anywhere. > Is thee any ada compiler under BSD license ? The best list of compilers I know of is at http://www.adaic.com/compilers/comp-tool.html That list would probably not include volunteer efforts. > Thanks for your help. You're welcome. Hope this helps. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
* Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... 2006-06-19 10:16 ` Stephen Leake @ 2006-06-19 10:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 115+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2006-06-19 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake wrote : > klobert <klobert@sbcglobal.net> writes: >> What's the difference in functionality between these: (gnat, >> gccada3.44, gccada4.1.0 ? ) > > They nominally contain the _same_ compiler, but they are slightly > different because of release cycles. > > A major difference is that some of the tools that are in GNAT GPL-2006 > are not in gcc ada; notably ASIS, and the debugger may not be > Ada-aware (depending on exactly how your distribution is configured). > > Also, the GNAT public releases are more reliable (more thoroughly > tested). That's because the gcc release cycle does _not_ wait for Ada > compiler issues, while the GNAT public release cycle does. That may > become less of an issue over time. > > I believe gcc ada 4.1.0 has the same Ada 2005 features as GNAT > GPL-2005, but I'm not sure. gcc ada 3.4.4 has no Ada 2005 features. What I gathered by looking at the diffs of the Ada front-end and library between releases: GCC 3.4 < GCC 4.0 < GNAT GPL 2005 < GCC 4.1 < GCC 4.2 < GNAT GPL 2006 IIRC, most of the changes between GNAT GPL 2005 and GCC 4.1 are in the Ada.Containers library. Support for Ada 2005 gradually improves with each release, and seems to be complete starting with GNAT GPL 2006; at least that's what AdaCore's marketing leads me to believe. I don't know where each GNAT Pro release fits in that sequence. Contrast this with the versions of the back-ends, which affect the quality of the optimiser: GCC 3.4.0 < GNAT GPL 2005 (3.4.4 + patches) < GNAT GPL 2006 (3.4.6) < GCC 4.0 < GCC 4.1 < GCC 4.2 GCC 4.2 is not released yet; it is in stage 3: only bug fixes and no more new features. The reason why GNAT GPL is still based on GCC 3.4.x is because GCC 4.0 introduced Tree-SSA, a major change in the internal architecture of the compiler, which has brought some instability (read: bug boxes). GCC 4.1 corrects most if not all of that instability. -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 115+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-01 13:19 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 115+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-06-19 1:05 can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions klobert 2006-06-19 8:32 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-19 9:24 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-19 10:29 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-19 11:39 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-22 23:08 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-23 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-23 17:24 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 0:08 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 10:01 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 11:32 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 12:04 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 13:16 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 15:37 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 17:43 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 18:27 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 19:26 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 19:45 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 19:47 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 23:16 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-25 11:48 ` M E Leypold [not found] ` <rntq9299uobutv707i07gqi87oeba18e63@4ax.com> 2006-06-24 21:07 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-25 17:50 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-25 18:47 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-25 20:49 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 11:04 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-26 12:19 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 12:39 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-26 13:46 ` M E Leypold [not found] ` <n1nu92praahokl5ev7ih75j9f2t09hugt8@4ax.com> 2006-06-26 12:08 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 18:35 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-06-26 19:29 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 20:31 ` community supported Ada environment (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) Björn Persson 2006-06-26 19:01 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-26 19:50 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 20:09 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-27 22:15 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 1:55 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 19:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 1:54 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 2:12 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-28 2:48 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 21:10 ` Teaching languages (was: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...) Björn Persson 2006-06-26 21:39 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 18:58 ` can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-26 19:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:03 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 19:29 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 19:34 ` Pascal Obry 2006-06-27 19:57 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 20:12 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 22:13 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-27 22:44 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 9:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 12:44 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 18:35 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 19:40 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 5:55 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-27 22:35 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 22:34 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 22:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 19:40 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-27 22:49 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-28 2:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-28 5:53 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-28 12:46 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-29 20:14 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-30 8:20 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-30 12:47 ` Marc A. Criley 2006-07-01 2:20 ` Steve 2006-07-01 8:54 ` M E Leypold 2006-07-01 9:56 ` Pascal Obry 2006-07-01 12:03 ` Michael Bode 2006-07-01 12:48 ` Pascal Obry 2006-07-01 13:19 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-28 19:18 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-06-28 22:35 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-27 7:26 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2006-06-27 8:00 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-06-27 10:51 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2006-06-28 19:03 ` Niklas Holsti 2006-06-28 19:42 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-28 22:34 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 11:55 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-24 11:41 ` Jeffrey Creem 2006-06-24 12:38 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 13:11 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 14:13 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 21:28 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-25 21:42 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-26 15:59 ` Martin Krischik 2006-06-24 12:58 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 13:21 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-24 14:39 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 14:33 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 11:22 ` Samuel Tardieu 2006-06-25 11:55 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 12:45 ` Marius Amado-Alves 2006-06-24 11:16 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 11:12 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 21:37 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 12:49 ` gshapovalov 2006-06-24 13:10 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 13:27 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 14:06 ` Michael Bode 2006-06-24 14:48 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 15:40 ` george 2006-06-24 16:24 ` Ludovic Brenta 2006-06-24 17:51 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 16:26 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-25 21:09 ` Simon Wright 2006-06-25 21:31 ` M E Leypold 2006-06-24 13:55 ` Georg Bauhaus 2006-06-19 10:16 ` Stephen Leake 2006-06-19 10:40 ` Ludovic Brenta
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox