GPL and the big picture (was Re: Development process in the Ada community)

["David Botton" <David@Botton.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>

> You and I discussed Claw, including the licensing at the Washington
> SigAda (4 years ago!).
> I know I told you then that the long-term plan
> was to make Claw publically available. If you had simply asked before
> starting to work on an alternative, you would have reminded me that we
> needed to open up the license. And I'm sure we could have worked out an
> acceptable time-table for that.


I don't recall such a conversation, but that's ok.
Action is louder than words, and you have certainly acted!

> In any case, I have to wonder why you decided to build something from
> scratch rather than building on top of Windex, which already existed and
> had the appropriate license. My guess, is that you fell into the same
> trap that many of us do: "I can do better than that...". Such a waste of
> effort.


GWindows took a different direction than both CLAW and Windex. It is easier
to use (testimony of users with experience in all three frameworks) and like
I said, offers many features not found elsewhere (I truly get the impression
you don't know much about the framework - start with
http://www.adapower.com/gwindows/GWindowsVsClaw.html then move on to the
home page http://www.adapower.com/gwindows). I would hardly say the effort
of creating GWindows was a waste (nor was it that big an effort, it is a
labor of love  ;-). I (and others) have written many programs with GWindows
that are running in production environments today (those programs not always
being Open Source). As with most of what I publish as GMGPL (as with many
others actively developing GMGPL libraries), it is a means to an end. I make
my living using my tools not per se building them (although I wish that was
the case). The GMGPL is a tool to advocate Ada and having more than one
GMGPL framework certainly has its P.R. plusses.

You also only see a small part of the big picture. GWindows is part of the
GNATCOM 2.0 design in order to support the creation and native Ada use of
GUI ActiveX controls and a number of other COM/DCOM/ActiveX features. (There
are a number of features in GWindows that are missing from CLAW needed for
this along with the fact that CLAW's tasking model has many problems being
use for this purpose).

BTW, I know of at least two _major_ projects that used CLAW and GNATCOM
together.

GNATCOM itself is only part of a larger project (never named the blanket
project itself...). Another component of that project that is in development
and has taken some serious form is GNavi - The GNU Ada Visual IDE (There is
a very old screen snap shot at
http://www.adapower.com/gwindows/shots/gnavi_snap.jpg). There are other
components in design stages that go with these components as well (Database
related tools, Web Service tools, etc and far more - I certainly don't plan
on spilling all the beans at this point in time :-).

The basic CLAW is too far away from what I need to consider stopping
development on GWindows, putting full force behind extending CLAW "basic"
would be a trap that many fall in to, "cutting off your nose despite your
face" :~) It would also truly be a waste just to catch CLAW basic up to CLAW
full version when you have already written it (the first step before I can
extend CLAW to GWindows functional level)

Can you give a time table (if there is one) for the full version of CLAW to
become GMGPL. Perhaps there is some future in merging with CLAW, but that is
to be seen.

I look forward to the day (I don't suspect it will be that long off) when
your frustrations have vented and attacking my project will no longer be
necessary for you and some clear thinking about the future possibilities
shines forth.

> What do you mean by this? Did you mean "grab some code *from* ..."?
I was referring to the ability to incorporate GMGPL code in to CLAW from
another project or vice versa.

In a nut shell:

I write in Ada because it is the better all around language, I write my
frameworks and tools to make it possible to use Ada on my projects, I
release my work as GMGPL to promote Ada usage. I've gotten the short end of
the stick from Microsoft and Borland more than once, so I learned the hard
way to believe in using (and creating) GPL lic. tools. (Although I prefer
open development models, GPL does not always mean this...)

Ada Core and other companies choosing the GPL to lic. their products will
out live and prosper beyond the current MicroSoft Era of software
development (they already are...)

Making it these days (financially speaking) with the GPL requires the same
skills that all true Entrepreneurs must have, broad vision and self
discipline. Start thinking now about the new models of business that use
open lic. schemes, for tomorrow it may just be too late.

David Botton