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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:af83:: with SMTP id p3-v6mr1087172ioo.31.1524061885518; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:31:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3286:: with SMTP id u6-v6mr147836otb.13.1524061885180; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!f63-v6no297362itc.0!news-out.google.com!u64-v6ni6856itb.0!nntp.google.com!f63-v6no297360itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:31:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <06a8980d-21bb-4067-b22d-7d1f89342948@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: How to get Ada to ?cross the chasm?? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:31:25 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 4361 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3994751834 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51594 Date: 2018-04-18T07:31:24-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 7:44:04 AM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2018-04-17, Mehdi Saada wrote: > > I have trouble believing that Adacore (free) forbid completely selling > > softwares in other licenses as GPL or the likes of. I have no technical > > knowledge of these things, but I feel like your points of view are a > > bit... one sided ? >=20 > Adacore force the GPL on any software developed using the Community > version. See >=20 > https://www.adacore.com/gnatpro/comparison >=20 > where it says (under Community) "For open source GPL software". >=20 > Oh, and it's not "one sided", it's called giving the Ada community > a dose of cold reality. You can talk about the advantages of Ada all > you want but Ada's advantages mean nothing until the Ada compiler > situation matches the compiler situation for other languages. >=20 > Any compiler which imposes the GPL on any software developed using > it would be absolutely dead on arrival in many environments especially > when compilers for other languages are available for free which do > not impose such constraints. >=20 > GPL based software development is a small subset of all the software > development out there. >=20 > Also, as far as I can see (and I am willing to be corrected here if > I am wrong) it means that you can't even write a library in Ada under > something other than the GPL if you are going to use the Community > version. As soon as you compile the library source with the Community > version, it falls under the GPL and hence any software using your > library also falls under the GPL. >=20 > In order to create an Ada library with a LGPL or MIT licence > (for example), you have to fall back to the FSF version which > does not have that constraint. Survey: truly how bad is using FSF GNAT in practice? It of course lacks a= ll the extras and older language editions (e.g., ASIS, Ada1983, Ada1995, Ad= a2005, AJIS). And sure, FSF GNAT lags by up to 24 months compared to GNAT = Pro Enterprise/Assurance level; feature-by-feature bugfix-by-bugfix FSF GNA= T lags by less than 12 months when compared to GNAT GPL Community Edition. I think that the real problem with AdaCore is the lack of sub-$1000 non-GPL= annual license for mass-market operating systems on mass-market ISAs, such= as Windows, MacOS, Android, and iOS. Looking at some other compiler vendo= rs of non-Ada languages, each of them have a sub-$1000 non-GPL license avai= lable: RemObjects $800/year (all target mass-market OSes/ISAs included), M= icrosoft $500/year (all mass-market target OSes/ISAs included), Intel $700/= year/OS. I am always baffled by why AdaCore doesn't hire an engineer for GNAT on mas= s-market OSes on mass-market ISAs (or even one engineer per each mass-marke= t OS), because only 150 to 200 $1000 annual licenses would more than fully = cover all costs for that engineer. The likelihood of an even greater quant= ity of such mass-market annual licenses would be quite high, which implies = profit instead of break-even. Likewise for other Ada compiler vendors.