Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions...

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

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