How available is 'freely available' ?

How available is 'freely available' ?

[flupp]

Hello all,

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.

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. But am I really correct in this assumption ? Because
contradictory to this assumption, https://libre2.adacore.com/gps/ says
: "the GNAT GPL Edition is licensed solely for Free Software
development and is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU
General Public License" ???

Do I see it correctly when I think I could use the (non commercial)
GNAT combined with emacs and the GNU gdb ? Then again, there is
Gate/Glide/Glade. Can these be used for commercial development ? And
what about GPS ? I think they can all be used without problems ?

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 ...

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)
?

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.
----
Similarly, if I compile GPS from (open) source, I think I can use it,
even for developing commercial programs, just as I'd use gcc (provided
I wouldn't want support) ? My compiled GPS's compiler doesn't care
about what I'm compiling? I think this also applies to Glade/Gate/Glide
?
But what if I use the GtkAda binding ? Can GtkAda / XML/Ada / PolyOrb
be used freely in commercial programs ? If I leave them unchanged, can
I just use these ?
===

I failed to find recent logs answering my questions. But the licensing
restrictions I seem to understand from AdaCore's website conflicts with
beliefs I encountered in several (previous) working places I
encountered, and with which I am just now faced with (while evaluating
development environments for own commercial use) ...

Kind regards,

PhB

Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[Ludovic Brenta]

You are looking in the right direction.  The license of GPS or the
compiler does not matter; but the license of the libraries that you
use in your program does.  If you use GNAT to compile your Ada
program, you are probably going to link your program with GNAT's Ada
run-time library, libgnat.  (You don't have to link with libgnat; you
can use GNAT's pragma No_Run_Time, but there are rather severe
consequences).

In the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition, the run-time library is pure GPL.

In GNAT Pro and GCC, the run-time library is under the "GNAT-Modified
GPL", which allows you to distribute binaries linked against them
under any license you like, even a non-free license.

More details here:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing

And my personal opinion: your best option is GNAT Pro, and your second
best option is Debian GNU/Linux.  If neither is acceptable to you,
then you'll probably have to get the sources for some or all libraries
and compile them yourself.  These sources usually allow you to
distribute binaries linked against them under a non-free license.  For
example:

- the compiler and Ada run-time library are at http://gcc.gnu.org

- GtkAda and other libraries from AdaCore are at
  https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/

You can find more libraries in source form on SourceForge, Tigris and
other sites.

HTH

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:26 -0700, flupp wrote:

>  But I am not really 100% sure about the legal
> issues when using it for commercial development:

You are free to use pure GPL software in commercial software
development *iff* the terms of the license (GPL) meet your
commercial needs.
 We do part of our commercial software development using GPL
software. Many others do this, too. But this part of the software
is used commercially without distributing it at all, or without
distributing it to third parties in binary form only.

License and commerce are really two different dimensions
in this case.

It depends on whether or not your intent is to produce
closed source binary software for distribution
to third parties, or open source + binary for distribution
to third parties, distribution of source only, or no
distribution at all, and so on.
As Ludovic explains, distribution of binaries only is
where the GPL matters.


-- Georg 

Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[flupp]

Ludovic,

Thank you for your answer. Another (call it 'follow-on') question based
upon your answer, is :
can I use AdaCore's GtkAda as a (GPL) binding over GTK (which itself is
LGPL'd), in a compiled commercial program (supposed I don't link in any
other GPL libraries, but eventually still might link in GMGPL or LGPL
libraries) ?

I agree on your point that my best bet would most probably be to use a
commercial GNAT Pro, but to pay (uselessly) for something that may
eventually be free (not breaking any other rules) would not be bright
neither, would it ?

Kind regards,

PhB

Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[Jeffrey Creem]

flupp wrote:
> Ludovic,
> 
> Thank you for your answer. Another (call it 'follow-on') question based
> upon your answer, is :
> can I use AdaCore's GtkAda as a (GPL) binding over GTK (which itself is
> LGPL'd), in a compiled commercial program (supposed I don't link in any
> other GPL libraries, but eventually still might link in GMGPL or LGPL
> libraries) ?
> 
> I agree on your point that my best bet would most probably be to use a
> commercial GNAT Pro, but to pay (uselessly) for something that may
> eventually be free (not breaking any other rules) would not be bright
> neither, would it ?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> PhB
> 

I would not call it paying uselessly since you get the license you want, 
you get support that is good and you get tools/libraries that have had 
some real thouht by real developers working the product to make sure you 
end up with something stable.

Having said that, if you don't care about support and don't care that 
much about having well tested tools then there are other options.

If you don't want to distribute your code under the terms of the GPL, 
then I recommend not trying to look for loopholes or rationalaizations 
why linking in a GPL library will end up being ok. It almost certainly 
will not be ok.

If you carefully use the correct versions of code at the gnuada.sf.net 
you can get GMGPL versions of *Most* things you are likely to use.
(Gtkada, GNAT/GCC).

And to reiterate what two others have indicated...You are free to use 
the GPL versions of the libraries for commercial purposes as long as you 
  sell your commercial product in a manner that is complaint with the GPL.


Finally, the scariest thing about this is of course that for all you 
know, all of this legal advice is being generated by monkeys banging on 
keyboards (though in all fairness, I suppose half of the laws read that 
way too). If you are working with/for/in a large company with a legal 
staff you really need to include them in the decision making process.

If it is just you, then just realize the sort of risk you are taking 
getting "free" legal advise on usenet. (Though I suppose why would one 
pay for a lawyer now when if one gets arrested, the state will provide 
one for free :)

Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[Björn Persson]

flupp wrote:
> can I use AdaCore's GtkAda as a (GPL) binding over GTK (which itself is
> LGPL'd), in a compiled commercial program (supposed I don't link in any
> other GPL libraries, but eventually still might link in GMGPL or LGPL
> libraries) ?

Isn't GTKada under the GMGPL? A copy I looked at has the exception in 
the file headers.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[Stephen Leake]

"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

Re: How available is 'freely available' ?

[Ludovic Brenta]

"flupp" <philippe.bertin@telenet.be> writes:
> Thank you for your answer. Another (call it 'follow-on') question
> based upon your answer, is : can I use AdaCore's GtkAda as a (GPL)
> binding over GTK (which itself is LGPL'd), in a compiled commercial
> program (supposed I don't link in any other GPL libraries, but
> eventually still might link in GMGPL or LGPL libraries) ?

GtkAda comes as part of GNAT GPL 2005 Edition under the pure GPL, so
if you distribute binaries linked with it, you must do so under the
GPL and provide your source code to your customers.

Or, you can get GtkAda as part of GNAT Pro under GNAT-Modified GPL.

Or, you can get it in source-only form under the GNAT-Modified GPL
from AdaCore's CVS repository.

Or, you can get it in source and binary form, under the GNAT-Modified
GPL, as part of Debian GNU/Linux or from gnuada.sourceforge.net.

> I agree on your point that my best bet would most probably be to use
> a commercial GNAT Pro, but to pay (uselessly) for something that may
> eventually be free (not breaking any other rules) would not be
> bright neither, would it ?

As Jeffrey said, you would be getting support in return for your
payment.  In addition, you would receive one very valuable service:
packaging.  With GNAT Pro, you would receive all the libraries you
care about, packaged, precompiled and ready-to-use on all the
development platforms you care about.

If you go for Debian, then you get the same service but on only one
platform.

If you go for http://gnuada.sourceforge.net, you will receive the same
service on several platforms (but Windows is not one of them).  You
can even choose between the GPL and the GMGPL.

If you choose to "use the source, Luke", then you will have compile
and package everything on all the platforms you need.  You will also
have to decide how you want to package everything (your program and
the libraries) for use by your customers.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.