Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>]

"flupp" <philippe.bertin@telenet.be> writes:

> I am in the process of evaluating several (commercial) development
> alternatives. One option would have been to use Qt (mainly because of
> it's OS independence,  less because of it's maintainability). Another
> option could be to combine Ada (mainly because of it's maintainability,
> less because of it's OS independence) with (L)GPL library Ada bindings.

I'm confused. Qt is a GUI library. Ada is a programming language. How
can they be alternate options for one project?

A project needs a programming language, and (if it's a GUI project) it
needs a GUI library.

If you choose Ada as the programming language, you have several GUI
libraries to choose from. I'm not aware of a Qt binding for Ada, but
there may be one.

Perhaps by "Ada" you meant "GtkAda" (as you mention below); that is a
GUI library written in C with an Ada binding. I believe it carries the
GPL license, but I'm not sure.

> For this second option (i.e. using Ada), I really think the GPL GNAT
> could do the trick. But I am not really 100% sure about the legal
> issues when using it for commercial development: I *think* the GPL GNAT
> can be used for commercial development (as it is open source, and can
> be compiled from source), just as one can commercially compile C
> programs with gcc. 

What, exactly, do you mean by "commercial"? In general, that means
"making money". But the details matter.

If you plan on selling binaries, _without_ distributing sources, then
you need to use libraries that have a license other than GPL. 

But if you plan to sell binaries _with_ sources, GPL is fine. 

Or if you plan to give away binaries and/or sources, and sell support,
GPL is fine.

> Do I see it correctly when I think I could use the (non commercial)
> GNAT 

GNAT is a commercial product; it is produced by the AdaCore company,
which definitely is in business to make money (and doing pretty well
at it :).

GNAT is also a Free Software product, which means the source is freely
available.

GPL GNAT comes with run-time libraries that are licensed under the Gnu
Public License (GPL), which means (among several other things) you
must distribute sources with binaries.

Supported GNAT from AdaCore, and the GNAT in the FSF gcc and Debian
distributions, comes with run-time libraries that are licensed under
the GNAT Modified GPL (GMGPL), which means (among other things) you
_don't_ have to distribute source with binaries.

> combined with emacs and the GNU gdb ? 

Yes, GNAT integrates nicely with Emacs and gdb.

> Then again, there is Gate/Glide/Glade. Can these be used for
> commercial development ? 

Of course, you can make money with almost any tool. But you do need to
check what license any distributed run-time carries.

I'm not sure what license Gate/Glide/Glade have, probably GPL, but
possibly GMGPL. 

> And what about GPS ? I think they can all be used without problems ?

The development tool is licensed independently of the run-time
library. You only need to distribute the run-time library, and it is
the license of that library that determines what you can do with it.

> On the other hand, I am not that sure about the possibilities in using
> the GtkAda binding. Even if GTK is LGPL'd, can the GtkAda binding be
> used 'as such' in commercial programs ? I have contradictory feelings
> about this, because it seems to be stemming from AdaCore (a commercial
> firm) that is also selling legal licenses, YET it is open source ...

You are confusing two terms:

"commercial" = in business to make money

"Open Source" = run time license requires distributing source

> And what about other bindings, like there are e.g. the SocketAda, the
> POSIX, and the XML/Ada bindings (all from the same AdaCore, and the
> last one even also available in other bindings if I saw this correctly)
> ?

They all come with a distribution license. It is up to you to verify
that the license is compatible with your distribution plans.

> So my incertainties resume to the following model (permit me to compare
> my questions to the GNU grep and PERL usage) :
> ===
> If I compile grep, I can freely use it, and my grep doesn't care what
> files I grep (commercial or GPL files). If I compile PERL, I can freely
> use it and write any program I like and (eventually commercially) sell
> it.
> However, if I start using some (third party/commercially licensed)
> libraries from within PERL there may be licensing restrictions: I may
> be violating the specific library's author's licensing rules.

You can _always_ use any program you compile for your _own_ use, no
matter what the license (well, among the licenses we are talking about
here, anyway). 

The issues arise when you want to give or sell your program, as binary
or source, to someone else.



All of this must be covered by the disclaimer: "I am not a lawyer, and
not qualified to give legal advice". You are asking questions that are
best answered by a lawyer.

-- 
-- Stephe