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.