Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever see somethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever see somethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Anh Vo]

Download it at
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mingw/MinGW-3.2.0-rc-1.exe?download
if you are using Windows. In addition, for Win32 bindings, it is very
easy. The best way is use option -I pointing to where Win32 bindings
live. Enjoy!

AV

>>> israel t <rambam@bigpond.net.au> 01/11/05 05:33PM >>>
"William J. Thomas" <wjthomas@wcvt.com> writes:

> Is GCC 3.4.3 the new GNAT? 
> In other words what is it


"GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection, includes front ends for C, C++,
Objective-C, Fortran, Java, 
and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++,
libgcj,...). "

> and where do you 
> download it from?

The usual places...... :-)

Just type "emerge gcc " if you are using gentoo and portage will
download , compile and install
it for you.

If you are on redhat download the rpm
Otherwise download and compile the tarball.

If all else fails go to:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html 

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever see somethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[dubya]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:24:56 -0600, Anh Vo wrote:

> Just type "emerge gcc " if you are using gentoo and portage will
> download , compile and install
> it for you.

Not ada afaik.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever see somethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Bobby D. Bryant]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, dubya <thedubber@hotmale.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:24:56 -0600, Anh Vo wrote:
> 
>> Just type "emerge gcc " if you are using gentoo and portage will
>> download , compile and install
>> it for you.
> 
> Not ada afaik.

You have to "emerge gnat", and by default you still get 3.15.  However
there are ebuilds for 3.4.1 and 3.4.3 available as "unstable" ebuilds.
I've been using 3.4.1 for a while without any problems.

N.B. - If you're running Gentoo and decide to try this, you'll notice
that these are labeled as "3.41" and "3.41" so that they will show as
greater than "3.15", but they are actually 3.4.1 and 3.4.3.

-- 
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Dowie]

Anh Vo wrote:
> Download it at
> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mingw/MinGW-3.2.0-rc-1.exe?download
> if you are using Windows. In addition, for Win32 bindings, it is very
> easy. The best way is use option -I pointing to where Win32 bindings
> live. Enjoy!

Why 3.2.0 and not 3.4.2?.. Which seems to be the latest...

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Jeff C]

"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@baesystems.com> wrote in message 
news:41e503af_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
> Anh Vo wrote:
>> Download it at
>> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mingw/MinGW-3.2.0-rc-1.exe?download
>> if you are using Windows. In addition, for Win32 bindings, it is very
>> easy. The best way is use option -I pointing to where Win32 bindings
>> live. Enjoy!
>
> Why 3.2.0 and not 3.4.2?.. Which seems to be the latest...
>
> Cheers
>
> -- Martin
>
>
>

Actualy the latest mingw release is indeed 3.2.0-rc-1 but the mingw project 
also has releases of individual tools (like gcc 3.4.2)

In this case, Mingw-3.2.0 is a very new release and contains within it :

 gcc-ada-3.4.2.tar.gz
gcc-core-3.4.2.tar.gz
gcc-g++-3.4.2.tar.gz
gcc-g77-3.4.2.tar.gz
gcc-java-3.4.2.tar.gz
gcc-objc-3.4.2.tar.gz
binutils-2.15.91-20040904-1
mingw-runtime-3.6
w32api-3.2
gdb-5.2.1-1
mingw32-make-3.80.0-3
mingw-utils-0.3.tar.gz


The nice thing is this goes most of the way toward the "single download" 
that people tend to want.

I'd still recommend msys as well (for a cygwindll free version of a BASH 
style shell) 

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Dowie]

Jeff C wrote:
> Actualy the latest mingw release is indeed 3.2.0-rc-1 but the mingw
> project also has releases of individual tools (like gcc 3.4.2)

That's obvious... not.

> In this case, Mingw-3.2.0 is a very new release and contains within
> it :
>
>  gcc-ada-3.4.2.tar.gz
[snip]
> mingw-utils-0.3.tar.gz
>
>
> The nice thing is this goes most of the way toward the "single
> download" that people tend to want.

What about ASIS? I couldn't live without AdaBrowse... :-)

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Dowie]

Martin Dowie wrote:
> Jeff C wrote:
>> Actualy the latest mingw release is indeed 3.2.0-rc-1 but the mingw
>> project also has releases of individual tools (like gcc 3.4.2)
>
> That's obvious... not.

Ah, I get it now! v3.2 of the whole MinGW "bundle" is at 3.2 and that
contains the 3.4.2 version of GCC...

sorry!

-- Martin

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Christopher Douty]

Martin Dowie <martin.dowie@baesystems.com> wrote:
> Jeff C wrote:
>> Actualy the latest mingw release is indeed 3.2.0-rc-1 but the mingw
>> project also has releases of individual tools (like gcc 3.4.2)
[snip]
>> The nice thing is this goes most of the way toward the "single
>> download" that people tend to want.
> 
> What about ASIS? I couldn't live without AdaBrowse... :-)

Ah, there's the rub.

ACT has only been contributing the main compiler technology into the main GCC
project.  The MinGW project takes the GCC releases and patches them up to
run on Windows, so gcc-3.4.2 MinGW special passes a fair bit of ACATS.
Unfortunately it is *just* the compiler.  ASIS, Florist, GLADE, etc. are
all stuck in the past.  The Win32 binding project compiles just fine, but
ACT's package will only install if GNAT 3.15p is already installed.

You could try using martin Kruchik's port of ASIS and florist is irrelevant
for Windows.  I haven't tried yet.  Enough compiler internals have changed 
that I wouldn't particularly trust it.

There is also the debugger problem.  Normal gdb sources won't compile under
MinGW, and no recent gsb has been ported.  IIRC the gdb distributed with GNAT
3.15p for windows is actually cygwin based.

I am hoping that ACT will do a full release of GNAT tools soon, but it really
doesn't look likely.  The recent releases of GtkAda and GPS 2.1 are great,
but they don't quite integrate with any of the publicly available toolsets.
I hope that they are not waiting for Ada2005. :-|

Cheers,
	Chris Douty

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Dowie]

Christopher Douty wrote:
> I am hoping that ACT will do a full release of GNAT tools soon, but
> it really doesn't look likely.  The recent releases of GtkAda and GPS
> 2.1 are great, but they don't quite integrate with any of the
> publicly available toolsets. I hope that they are not waiting for
> Ada2005. :-|

Does the "GAP" release come with ASIS?

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Jerome Hugues]

In article <41e64436_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>, Martin Dowie wrote:
> Christopher Douty wrote:
>> I am hoping that ACT will do a full release of GNAT tools soon, but
>> it really doesn't look likely.  The recent releases of GtkAda and GPS
>> 2.1 are great, but they don't quite integrate with any of the
>> publicly available toolsets. I hope that they are not waiting for
>> Ada2005. :-|
> 
> Does the "GAP" release come with ASIS?

The GAP release comes with *all* AdaCore tools and add-ons, including
ASIS, AUnit, AWS, GLADE, GtkAda, PolyORB, and XML/Ada, but also (and
of course) the compiler and the debugger, and GPS ..

If only AdaCore could make it available to everyone, and not only the
academics .. 

-- 
Jerome

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Jerome Hugues wrote:

> In article <41e64436_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>, Martin Dowie wrote:
>> Christopher Douty wrote:
>>> I am hoping that ACT will do a full release of GNAT tools soon, but
>>> it really doesn't look likely.  The recent releases of GtkAda and GPS
>>> 2.1 are great, but they don't quite integrate with any of the
>>> publicly available toolsets. I hope that they are not waiting for
>>> Ada2005. :-|
>> 
>> Does the "GAP" release come with ASIS?
> 
> The GAP release comes with *all* AdaCore tools and add-ons, including
> ASIS, AUnit, AWS, GLADE, GtkAda, PolyORB, and XML/Ada, but also (and
> of course) the compiler and the debugger, and GPS ..

It's GPL: Can't we find a Studend who makes a copy into the public ftp
server of his univerity?

> If only AdaCore could make it available to everyone, and not only the
> academics ..

Yes: for personal academics use. BTW: you know the price tag? I am well
prepared to pay - just I can't buy the standart 5 developer licence.

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Florian Weimer]

* Martin Krischik:

>> The GAP release comes with *all* AdaCore tools and add-ons, including
>> ASIS, AUnit, AWS, GLADE, GtkAda, PolyORB, and XML/Ada, but also (and
>> of course) the compiler and the debugger, and GPS ..
>
> It's GPL: Can't we find a Studend who makes a copy into the public ftp
> server of his univerity?

In general, you aren't allowed to do this even with supposedly GPLed
software.  The GPL doesn't give you this right.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Martin Krischik:
> 
>>> The GAP release comes with *all* AdaCore tools and add-ons, including
>>> ASIS, AUnit, AWS, GLADE, GtkAda, PolyORB, and XML/Ada, but also (and
>>> of course) the compiler and the debugger, and GPS ..
>>
>> It's GPL: Can't we find a Studend who makes a copy into the public ftp
>> server of his univerity?
> 
> In general, you aren't allowed to do this even with supposedly GPLed
> software.  The GPL doesn't give you this right.

Quote from the GNAT Source:

|GNAT is free software;  you can  redistribute it  and/or modify it under
|terms of the  GNU General Public License as published  by the Free Soft
|ware  Foundation;  either version 2,  or (at your option) any later ver-
|sion.  GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH-

Quote of the GPL:

|You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as
|you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
|appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and 
|disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all th e notices that refer to this 
|License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients
|of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. You may
|charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at 
|your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.       

And:

|You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under 
|Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1
|and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:   

So, why do you think it is not allowed to copy a GAP release to an ftp
Server for public access? 

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
ttp://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Florian Weimer]

* Martin Krischik:

> So, why do you think it is not allowed to copy a GAP release to an ftp
> Server for public access? 

You can't know if this is in violation of a contract the university
has entered with AdaCore or a third party.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Martin Krischik:
> 
>> So, why do you think it is not allowed to copy a GAP release to an ftp
>> Server for public access?
> 
> You can't know if this is in violation of a contract the university
> has entered with AdaCore or a third party.

Neither can you! We need somebody who has actually seen the contract.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[f]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:56:54 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:

>> So, why do you think it is not allowed to copy a GAP release to an ftp
>> Server for public access? 
> 
> You can't know if this is in violation of a contract the university
> has entered with AdaCore or a third party.

Can such a contract legally exist??!!! That means I can make contracts
left and right that break the law. I really dont think it should be so.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> Can such a contract legally exist??!!! That means I can make contracts
> left and right that break the law. I really dont think it should be so.

Welcome to the real world. Now, what pill will you take? The red? The 
blue? :-)

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Simon Wright]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * Martin Krischik:
> 
> > It's GPL: Can't we find a Studend who makes a copy into the public
> > ftp server of his univerity?
> 
> In general, you aren't allowed to do this even with supposedly GPLed
> software.  The GPL doesn't give you this right.

Then I have been under a misapprehension for a long time.

0.  This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
    notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
    under the terms of this General Public License. [...]

1.  You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
    source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
    conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
    appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
    intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
    absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
    Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

Unless you are claiming that said student is not a recipient? nor a
licensee?

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Florian Weimer]

* Simon Wright:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>
>> * Martin Krischik:
>> 
>> > It's GPL: Can't we find a Studend who makes a copy into the public
>> > ftp server of his univerity?
>> 
>> In general, you aren't allowed to do this even with supposedly GPLed
>> software.  The GPL doesn't give you this right.
>
> Then I have been under a misapprehension for a long time.

> Unless you are claiming that said student is not a recipient? nor a
> licensee?

Most universities have regulations which override the GPL.  Whether
they are in violation of the GPL, I don't know.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <871xcp9eb8.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * Simon Wright:
> 
>> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>>
>>> * Martin Krischik:
>>> 
>>> > It's GPL: Can't we find a Studend who makes a copy into the public
>>> > ftp server of his univerity?
>>> 
>>> In general, you aren't allowed to do this even with supposedly GPLed
>>> software.  The GPL doesn't give you this right.
>>
>> Then I have been under a misapprehension for a long time.
> 
>> Unless you are claiming that said student is not a recipient? nor a
>> licensee?
> 
> Most universities have regulations which override the GPL.  Whether
> they are in violation of the GPL, I don't know.

The GPL cannot give me permission to post a copy on the subway cars with
spray paint.  The most it can do is refrain from prohibiting me from doing
so.

Although I suppose my example might be hampered by any requirement that I
publish the _complete_ work.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Dowie]

Simon Wright wrote:
> Then I have been under a misapprehension for a long time.
> 
> 0.  This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
>     notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
>     under the terms of this General Public License. [...]
> 
> 1.  You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
>     source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
>     conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
>     appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
>     intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
>     absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
>     Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
> 
> Unless you are claiming that said student is not a recipient? nor a
> licensee?

Is the problem then that the ".exe" installation (which is what everyone 
_really_ wants) is not GPL but only the _source_code_ of the thing being 
installed that must be made available (via the GPL)?

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Martin Dowie wrote:

> Simon Wright wrote:
>> Then I have been under a misapprehension for a long time.
>> 
>> 0.  This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
>>     notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
>>     under the terms of this General Public License. [...]
>> 
>> 1.  You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
>>     source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
>>     conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
>>     appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
>>     intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
>>     absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
>>     Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
>> 
>> Unless you are claiming that said student is not a recipient? nor a
>> licensee?
> 
> Is the problem then that the ".exe" installation (which is what everyone
> _really_ wants) is not GPL but only the _source_code_ of the thing being
> installed that must be made available (via the GPL)?

I would be happy with i.E. an up to date copy of ASIS - If I am not mistaken
it should contain gnat pretty ;-).

EXE would be perfect but a unified release of all sources would be the next
best thing!

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> Is the problem then that the ".exe" installation (which is what everyone 
> _really_ wants) is not GPL but only the _source_code_ of the thing being 
> installed that must be made available (via the GPL)?

This is only one of the many problems with no clear (legal) solution of 
software licensing with open source licenses. The one thing more complex 
than software is software licensing. Basically open source is in chaos. 
Sane solutions are being discussed at http://softdevelcoop.org

In the particular case above the GPL explicitly states that it does not 
regulate *execution* of the program, which I think is what in the spirit 
of the licensor of the academic package validates their request that it 
be *used* solely for academic purposes. However the open source 
definition strictly forbids restrictions on use. A legal conundrum. As I 
said, one of the many. Another is that the GPL does not regulate source 
and object code separately. It regulates the transmission of the 
"Program", and *obliges* a transmission of the object code to be 
accompanied by the corresponding source code.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Ludovic Brenta]

Marius Amado Alves writes:
> In the particular case above the GPL explicitly states that it does
> not regulate *execution* of the program, which I think is what in
> the spirit of the licensor of the academic package validates their
> request that it be *used* solely for academic purposes.  However the
> open source definition strictly forbids restrictions on use. A legal
> conundrum. As I said, one of the many. Another is that the GPL does
> not regulate source and object code separately. It regulates the
> transmission of the "Program", and *obliges* a transmission of the
> object code to be accompanied by the corresponding source code.

This is because of copyright law.  Copyright law regulates *copying*
and *distribution* of works only.  The author decides who can copy and
distribute their work, and on how they can do so, by granting
licenses.  If an author wants to restrict *usage*, then a *contract*
must be signed, and the author must receive some measurable sort of
compensation, lest the contract be null and void.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> ... the author must receive some measurable sort of
> compensation, lest the contract be null and void.

If this is true then the contract you sign with ACT for the academic 
package is null because you don't give them anything back. What happens 
next I'm not sure. Probably your copy of the software and all copies 
made thereof must be destroyed. Insane.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Simon Wright]

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:

> > ... the author must receive some measurable sort of
> > compensation, lest the contract be null and void.
> 
> If this is true then the contract you sign with ACT for the academic
> package is null because you don't give them anything back. What
> happens next I'm not sure. Probably your copy of the software and all
> copies made thereof must be destroyed. Insane.

Of course, none of us are lawyers .. my employers have a contract with
AdaCore under which we are supplied with support to a GPL'd software
suite which is distributed to us. So we are undoubtedly recipients,
and as a business could do what we like within the GPL. I think it's
questionable whether I as an employee have any rights in the matter
(AdaCore are quite happy for me to build my own versions, so long as
it's clear they aren't supported).

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:
> 
>> > ... the author must receive some measurable sort of
>> > compensation, lest the contract be null and void.
>> 
>> If this is true then the contract you sign with ACT for the academic
>> package is null because you don't give them anything back. What
>> happens next I'm not sure. Probably your copy of the software and all
>> copies made thereof must be destroyed. Insane.
> 
> Of course, none of us are lawyers .. my employers have a contract with
> AdaCore under which we are supplied with support to a GPL'd software
> suite which is distributed to us. So we are undoubtedly recipients,
> and as a business could do what we like within the GPL. I think it's
> questionable whether I as an employee have any rights in the matter
> (AdaCore are quite happy for me to build my own versions, so long as
> it's clear they aren't supported).

From all I gather from previous talk to AdaCore employees AdaCore would not
mind you making a copies of the CD/DVD either - so long as it's clear they
aren't supported.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Ludovic Brenta]

Marius Amado Alves writes:
>> ... the author must receive some measurable sort of compensation,
>> lest the contract be null and void.
>
> If this is true then the contract you sign with ACT for the academic
> package is null because you don't give them anything back. What
> happens next I'm not sure. Probably your copy of the software and
> all copies made thereof must be destroyed. Insane.

It depends.  Does the contract restrict you in any way?  If not there
is in fact no need for a contract, since a contract is meant to create
obligations to both parties.  IANAL, but my understanding is that,
without compensation, the contract is void but the license (here the
GPL) still applies.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Marius Amado Alves writes:
> 
>>>... the author must receive some measurable sort of compensation,
>>>lest the contract be null and void.
>>
>>If this is true then the contract you sign with ACT for the academic
>>package is null because you don't give them anything back. What
>>happens next I'm not sure. Probably your copy of the software and
>>all copies made thereof must be destroyed. Insane.
> 
> It depends.  Does the contract restrict you in any way?

I thought that had been established. Yes, the contract restricts use for 
academic purposes only.

> IANAL, but my understanding is that,
> without compensation, the contract is void but the license (here the
> GPL) still applies.

IANAL either, but usually when a contract is anulled the state of 
affairs previous to the contract must be restored. In this case the 
previous state is no copies distributed. The license becomes irrelevant.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[wt]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:06:43 +0000, Marius Amado Alves wrote:

>>>If this is true then the contract you sign with ACT for the academic
>>>package is null because you don't give them anything back. What
>>>happens next I'm not sure. Probably your copy of the software and
>>>all copies made thereof must be destroyed. Insane.
>> 
>> It depends.  Does the contract restrict you in any way?
> 
> I thought that had been established. Yes, the contract restricts use for 
> academic purposes only.

So is that a way around the GPL then? Just stipulate in your contract that
they cannot do anything with it? Is that even legal?

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

>>I thought that had been established. Yes, the contract restricts use for 
>>academic purposes only.
> 
> So is that a way around the GPL then? Just stipulate in your contract that
> they cannot do anything with it? Is that even legal?

Nobody knows. You made my point. This is a legal conundrum, and we close 
our eyes in order to get going. My additional point was that all open 
source is in similar chaos. More discussion at http://softdevelcoop.org

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
: Nobody knows.
(= 1)

: This is a legal conundrum
(= 2)

:... IANAL
(= 3)

: My additional point was that all open 
: source is in similar chaos.

I read this statement in the light of the difficulties of drawing a
consistent conclusion from 1, 2, and 3.

What you say is in insane chaos seems to work pretty well for companies with
big legal departments like IBM. But maybe IBM is in chaos?

Compensation, if applicable, has not not been defined here, but discussed.
Has anyone seen a GAP contract?


-- Georg

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> : Nobody knows.
> (= 1)
> 
> : This is a legal conundrum
> (= 2)
> 
> :... IANAL
> (= 3)
> 
> : My additional point was that all open 
> : source is in similar chaos.
> 
> I read this statement in the light of the difficulties of drawing a
> consistent conclusion from 1, 2, and 3.

Oh, please...

> What you say is in insane chaos seems to work pretty well for companies with
> big legal departments like IBM. But maybe IBM is in chaos?

Maybe...

> Compensation, if applicable, has not not been defined here, but discussed.
> Has anyone seen a GAP contract?

I have signed one. The gist of it is as I said: academic use only. (I'm 
not sure I can divulge the entire contract. I'll check eventually.)

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>> : Nobody knows.
>> (= 1)
>> 
>> : This is a legal conundrum
>> (= 2)
>> 
>> :... IANAL
>> (= 3)
>> 
>> : My additional point was that all open
>> : source is in similar chaos.
>> 
>> I read this statement in the light of the difficulties of drawing a
>> consistent conclusion from 1, 2, and 3.
> 
> Oh, please...
> 
>> What you say is in insane chaos seems to work pretty well for companies
>> with big legal departments like IBM. But maybe IBM is in chaos?
> 
> Maybe...
> 
>> Compensation, if applicable, has not not been defined here, but
>> discussed. Has anyone seen a GAP contract?
> 
> I have signed one. The gist of it is as I said: academic use only. (I'm
> not sure I can divulge the entire contract. I'll check eventually.)

More important is:

1) are stutends allowed to take copy home?
2) are you allowed to put a copy on the public ftp server for studend to
download?
3) would I be allowed to download from there for extra curriculum studies?

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

Mind the "buts" after the short answers.

> 1) are stutends allowed to take copy home?

Yes. But under the same terms.

> 2) are you allowed to put a copy on the public ftp server for studend to
> download?

Yes. But "Public" would be unwise. For students yes, but I think I 
become responsible for enforcing the terms of the contract upon them.

> 3) would I be allowed to download from there for extra curriculum studies?

No. If you're not a member or the "studies" are not "academic and 
teaching purposes" then I don't think so. Analyze the relevant clauses 
of the contract yourself:

<<
1.	AdaCore contributes binary releases containing the GNAT toolset (with 
Ada 2005, C, C++ compilers) along with the GPS IDE, as well as source 
releases for glade, polyorb, gtkada, asis, aws, xml/Ada, florist.

3.	Members agree to use the material contributed to this site [1] for 
academic and teaching purposes only.

4.	Each registered GAP Community member has the possibility to enroll 
any member of their institution via the Administration feature of the 
web service.  The registered member will ensure that other users agree 
to the conditions of this agreement.
 >>

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> Mind the "buts" after the short answers.
> 
>> 1) are stutends allowed to take copy home?
> 
> Yes. But under the same terms.
> 
>> 2) are you allowed to put a copy on the public ftp server for studend to
>> download?
> 
> Yes. But "Public" would be unwise. For students yes, but I think I
> become responsible for enforcing the terms of the contract upon them.
> 
>> 3) would I be allowed to download from there for extra curriculum
>> studies?
> 
> No. If you're not a member or the "studies" are not "academic and
> teaching purposes" then I don't think so. Analyze the relevant clauses
> of the contract yourself:
> 
> <<
> 1.    AdaCore contributes binary releases containing the GNAT toolset (with
> Ada 2005, C, C++ compilers) along with the GPS IDE, as well as source
> releases for glade, polyorb, gtkada, asis, aws, xml/Ada, florist.

Apart from the asis, florist florist sources there is nothing here which we
can't have anyway. Compiling the compiler is not that difficult. A GPS
binary was given away as chrismas present from AdaCore. The other sources
for the others packages all available at the libre cvs server
(:pserver:anoncvs@libre.act-europe.fr:/anoncvs, GLADE has been silently
added a few month ago, just get yourself a side wide cvs snapshot).

The only thing wich supprises me: Ada 2005?!?!

> 3.    Members agree to use the material contributed to this site [1] for
> academic and teaching purposes only.

Well self teaching is teaching.

> 4.    Each registered GAP Community member has the possibility to enroll
> any member of their institution via the Administration feature of the
> web service.  The registered member will ensure that other users agree
> to the conditions of this agreement.

I see, I would have to enrol in your university.

>  >>

At least we know know how it works. Nothing less fruitless then discussing
when you havn't got the facts right.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Georg Bauhaus]

Martin Krischik wrote:

> The only thing wich supprises me: Ada 2005?!?!

If you compile one of the more recent GCCs you have
Ada 2005, to some extent.


-- Georg

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
> 
>> The only thing wich supprises me: Ada 2005?!?!
> 
> If you compile one of the more recent GCCs you have
> Ada 2005, to some extent.

Yes, true: "to some extent". Marketing selling something which is not read
yet!

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[wt]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:48:00 +0000, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> What you say is in insane chaos seems to work pretty well for companies
> with big legal departments like IBM. But maybe IBM is in chaos?

Even big departments generally work off of the ideas of a couple of
leaders.

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[f]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:31:19 +0000, Marius Amado Alves wrote:

>>>I thought that had been established. Yes, the contract restricts use for 
>>>academic purposes only.
>> 
>> So is that a way around the GPL then? Just stipulate in your contract that
>> they cannot do anything with it? Is that even legal?
> 
> Nobody knows. You made my point. This is a legal conundrum, and we close 
> our eyes in order to get going. My additional point was that all open 
> source is in similar chaos. More discussion at http://softdevelcoop.org

Dude legalese is hard enough to read without coming across this:

http://softdevelcoop.org/Ada_Coop_License031.txt

HARD WRAPPING! Use kedit or something. Or atleast print to PDF. 

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Marius Amado Alves]

> Dude legalese is hard enough to read without coming across this:
> 
> http://softdevelcoop.org/Ada_Coop_License031.txt
> 
> HARD WRAPPING! Use kedit or something. Or atleast print to PDF. 

It's there.

(Glad to see you're pondering what pill to take :-)

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1402983.GME3yLZqFO@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com> writes:

> From all I gather from previous talk to AdaCore employees AdaCore would not
> mind you making a copies of the CD/DVD either - so long as it's clear they
> aren't supported.

Is ACT back to offering GNAT on CDROM to paying customers ?

For a while it seemed to be "FTP only".

Re: Isnt Gnat irrelevant ? ( was Re: Will the World ever seesomethingbeyond GNAT 3.15p?)

[Martin Krischik]

Christopher Douty wrote:

> You could try using martin Kruchik's port of ASIS and florist is
> irrelevant
> for Windows.  I haven't tried yet.  Enough compiler internals have changed
> that I wouldn't particularly trust it.

But the compiler internal files are repaced. The current ASIS packages
contains:

gnat-3.4.0
gnat-3.4.1
gnat-3.4.2
gnat-3.4.4
gnat-3.5.0

Martin

Of course it is much better to copy the package right from the gcc sources
used to greate the compiler itself. Than is fits perfectly.

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com