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 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: invalid Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to get Ada to ?cross the chasm?? Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 52iKuiSUpRLaAD3LrS+iGw.user.gioia.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51615 Date: 2018-04-18T20:00:05+00:00 List-Id: On 2018-04-18, 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 And it's all based on Robert Dewar's work that was paid for by U.S. grants funded by American Tax Dollars. The guy was a genius in more ways than one. This situation is not just bad, it's offensive. > 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. Which is really OK, but the fact basically only one compiler is available to people (not corporations) who want to develop in Ada is a very bad situation, indeed.