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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ce9:: with SMTP id 102-v6mr11260013iom.134.1525271962071; Wed, 02 May 2018 07:39:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5511:: with SMTP id l17-v6mr1443031oth.14.1525271961766; Wed, 02 May 2018 07:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feed.usenet.farm!feeder3.feed.usenet.farm!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!f199-v6no348287itd.0!news-out.google.com!b185-v6ni5658itb.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no922251itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 07:39:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=23.91.130.79; posting-account=FIrIqgoAAAAbYWMmVdbV5-vsuCUTq8lA NNTP-Posting-Host: 23.91.130.79 References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: How to get Ada to ?cross the chasm?? From: ric.wai88@gmail.com Injection-Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 14:39:22 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51918 Date: 2018-05-02T07:39:21-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2018-04-17, Mehdi Saada <00120260a@gmail.com> 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 ? > > Adacore force the GPL on any software developed using the Community > version. See > > https://www.adacore.com/gnatpro/comparison > > where it says (under Community) "For open source GPL software". > > 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. > > 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. > > GPL based software development is a small subset of all the software > development out there. > > 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. > > 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. > > Simon. > > -- > Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP > Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world This perplexes me though.. We use Ada commercially, and simply build FSF GNAT, which comes with the full run-time exception. It takes a bit of tinkering to get it going, but what doesn't in the open source world?