4 ms·

You probably know better, but I want to dispel some misunderstandings this post might unintentionally create. I am not a lawyer, nor am I associated with FSF, n

by pekk 11y ago

You probably know better, but I want to dispel some misunderstandings this post might unintentionally create. I am not a lawyer, nor am I associated with FSF, nor am I associated with AdaCore. Using a compiler licensed GPL does not mean that you have to release your software under GPL or a compatible license. As far as inclusion of runtimes into binaries, gcc has the "GCC runtime library exception" so that binaries compiled with its runtime don't have to be GPL-compatible. And FSF versions of GNAT have something comparable, via the "GNAT-Modified GPL" which also has a runtime exception. AdaCore is not FSF, it's a for-profit software company. If you are talking specifically about AdaCore compilers, it seems they intentionally removed their runtime exception as an incentive to buy AdaCore GNAT Pro, if you want to use their compiler to release commercial software. So I guess if you insist on using AdaCore compilers, AND you want to make money on your products, you will have to pay the company whose product you are using to make money. If AdaCore chose to release their teaser/free product under a proprietary license, I suspect nobody would be complaining about GPL here. They just happened to make the free product available under GPL.

mhd 11y ago
I obviously don't know better, which is why I was asking a question. Not being a lawyer, all those exceptions and their conditions are a bit hard to parse… And, well, they basically have to offer the GPL version, as they're based on GCC. Same as NeXt/Apple did with objective-c, same as Sencha did with ExtJs, if I don't mix legal terms up here, too. And like the latter, it's aimed at enterprises, so there's quite often a huge jump between doing an app for free and paying for the compiler. Heck, there's not even a publicly available price, which puts this more into Oracle's territory… Which is fine for corporate environments, where more figures on the bill is actually a bonus for managers (for lack of better knowledge, money == quality). Or when Ada is actually mandated. But for small-timers, it's a hard sell if other related languages would be available -- which this thread is all about. It definitely seems more in the K/APL territory regarding the price structure than e.g. freemium 3D engines.

by pekk 11y ago

mhd 11y ago

I obviously don't know better, which is why I was asking a question. Not being a lawyer, all those exceptions and their conditions are a bit hard to parse… And, well, they basically have to offer the GPL version, as they're based on GCC. Same as NeXt/Apple did with objective-c, same as Sencha did with ExtJs, if I don't mix legal terms up here, too. And like the latter, it's aimed at enterprises, so there's quite often a huge jump between doing an app for free and paying for the compiler. Heck, there's not even a publicly available price, which puts this more into Oracle's territory… Which is fine for corporate environments, where more figures on the bill is actually a bonus for managers (for lack of better knowledge, money == quality). Or when Ada is actually mandated. But for small-timers, it's a hard sell if other related languages would be available -- which this thread is all about. It definitely seems more in the K/APL territory regarding the price structure than e.g. freemium 3D engines.