From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-19 05:09:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!attbi_s01.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jeff C," Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <49cbf610.0401170627.79c3dfe5@posting.google.com> <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com> <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com> Subject: Re: why ada is so unpopular ? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.215.119 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s01 1074517787 24.34.215.119 (Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:09:47 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:09:47 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:09:48 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4552 Date: 2004-01-19T13:09:48+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com... > I don't know about the Gtk license itself or why GtkAda would have to > modify it slightly to enable the writing of proprietary software. What I > gathered by looking at the GtkAda license at least was that one could > develop an entirely proprietary app that made the Gtk calls through the > GtkAda binding. If one was doing a Gtk based interface, GtkAda seems > like the only logical choice (unless one needs Gtk capabilities that > aren't supported in GtkAda - a problem that all such bindings have and > an argument as to why Ada ought to have its own GUI.) > > It seems the best choice for a semi-portable interface if that is the > requirement. GPL "infection" does not seem to be an issue AFAICS. > > MDC > > Preben Randhol wrote: > > > > This package is distributed under the GPL license, slightly modified so > > that you can create proprietary software with this toolkit. The license > > is actually the same as the GNAT library itself. You should also read > > the Gtk license itself if you intend to do proprietary software based on > > gtk and GtkAda. > > > > > The "read the license part" is just a warning that this software (like almost all software) is covered by A license so make sure you understand the terms before development. The reason that the GNAT libraries and GtkAda use a modified GPL instead of an LGPL is that it is difficult (if not impossible) to comply with the terms of the LGPL in Ada (and in many cases C++) with proprietary distribution. WARNING. NON LAWYER APPROXIMATION OF TRUTH TO FOLLOW The LGPL requires that you distribute source with your execuables or that you distribute your execuables in such a way that the components that are LGPL can be updated by the end users (e.g. dynamically link to the LGPL library or provide .o files for all the proprietary stuff)..This woulld in theory allow an end user to fix a bug in the LGPL component (or get a bug fix link library) and "update" the program. The problem in Ada (and actually in other languages) is that there are pieces of code that at hard to do this with. If you have and LGPL generic it is essentially impossible with GNAT to have that be an LGPL component since the generic expantion happens at compile time. Something like this is also true of C++ and to some exent C header files. So the GMGPL is actually a slightly lesser (in RMS speak) language than the LGPL (meaning that it does not require the "field upgrade" capability of the LGPL.