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-Thread: 103376,7684e927a2475d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other licenses related questions... References: <449d2a28$0$11075$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <449d5c03$0$11074$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <6sbqsh6jv7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <87zmfymeih.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> From: M E Leypold Date: 28 Jun 2006 03:55:34 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.243.222 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151459360 88.72.243.222 (28 Jun 2006 03:49:20 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5174 Date: 2006-06-28T03:55:34+02:00 List-Id: Ludovic Brenta writes: > "Jeffrey R. Carter" writes: > > It's also clear that ACT cannot legally impose the GPL on their > > compilers the way they have. The DOD contract that resulted in GNAT > > was to create an Ada-95 compiler that is free (in both senses of the > > word) and may be used to create un-free programs. (These requirements > > resulted in the GMGPL.) As there is no Ada-0X standard yet, there can > > be no Ada-0X compilers yet, and in fact the ACT GPL compilers are > > Ada-95 compilers that implement some of the features of the Ada-0X > > draft only as an option. It seems ACT is calling them "200[5|6]" to > > try to get around the requirements of the contract, but it's clear > > that these are Ada-95 compilers with some extra features optionally > > available, and so in violation of the contract. (I wonder who at the > > DOD one would contact about this, since the AJPO no longer exists.) > > > > Of course, IANAL. > > What if the contract had a fixed term, and has now expired? > Conjectures, hypotheses and speculation. What if it didn't? Me thinks the expiry date was "when there is no Ada 95 anymore in Gnat". Regards .. Markus