3 ms·

> It should be noted that the free version of said compiler may only be used to produce software released under a GPL compatible license. No. No. No. GCC GNAT

by phaker 12y ago

> It should be noted that the free version of said compiler may only be used to produce software released under a GPL compatible license. No. No. No. GCC GNAT is under GPL 3 with GCC runtime library exception, the same license as the rest of GCC. Before GPL 3 it was licensed under GMGPL -- GNAT Modified GPL, which was very similar to the the current license as the "runtime library exception" is intended to unify similar exceptions from several GCC compilers, for example if you're using C++11 on GCC you are bound by the exact same license. I'm sorry if i'm not as nice as I could be. Every time Ada is mentioned someone chimes in with mythical license woes. You're doing harm by spreading misinformation. This myth needs to die.

hga 12y ago
A myth with a kernel of truth, and a licencing situation that's in truth a bit complicated, means there's significantly more "friction" involved with a decision to use GNAT, and therefore to even begin thinking about messing with Ada or SPARK. As I note in another posting in this subtread, that not a good way of "doing business", and can do nothing but suppress interest in and use of Ada or SPARK. E.g. I have every reason to believe you and the others commenting on this, but I'm going to have to confirm for myself that this is correct.
copx 12y ago
>You're doing harm by spreading misinformation. Blame AdaCore. I based my statement on the information on their website [1]. They certainly try to convince people that you have to buy GNAT Pro if you want to build non-GPL compatible software. Based on the other comments here, it seems it is actually possible to use GNAT, with an alternative FSF runtime, to build non-GPL compatible software without a license. Great, however AdaCore certainly likes to keep quiet about that possibility (for understandable reasons). Also as a potential user I would be worried about the quality of said runtime, given that it probably has no serious users and very little manpower behind it. [1] http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensing http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensi...
- e12e 12y ago
  I agree there may be some license surprises (a natural consequence of marrying a language with a runtime with the GPL, for better or worse) -- it might be worth to note that the code is under GPL, not AGPL -- so for most modern (read: SaaS) uses -- it doesn't matter. If you really are deploying a drone or something, it likely doesn't matter either, because a) you need to give your customer the source code anyway, b) your customer will gladly pay the fee for the commercial license -- and c) the project will be classified, so adacore could never legally sue you anyway (without risking indefinite detention as enemy combatants ... ;)

by phaker 12y ago

hga 12y ago

A myth with a kernel of truth, and a licencing situation that's in truth a bit complicated, means there's significantly more "friction" involved with a decision to use GNAT, and therefore to even begin thinking about messing with Ada or SPARK. As I note in another posting in this subtread, that not a good way of "doing business", and can do nothing but suppress interest in and use of Ada or SPARK. E.g. I have every reason to believe you and the others commenting on this, but I'm going to have to confirm for myself that this is correct.

copx 12y ago

>You're doing harm by spreading misinformation. Blame AdaCore. I based my statement on the information on their website [1]. They certainly try to convince people that you have to buy GNAT Pro if you want to build non-GPL compatible software. Based on the other comments here, it seems it is actually possible to use GNAT, with an alternative FSF runtime, to build non-GPL compatible software without a license. Great, however AdaCore certainly likes to keep quiet about that possibility (for understandable reasons). Also as a potential user I would be worried about the quality of said runtime, given that it probably has no serious users and very little manpower behind it. [1] http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensing http://libre.adacore.com/tools/gnat-gpl-edition/faq/#licensi...

e12e 12y ago
I agree there may be some license surprises (a natural consequence of marrying a language with a runtime with the GPL, for better or worse) -- it might be worth to note that the code is under GPL, not AGPL -- so for most modern (read: SaaS) uses -- it doesn't matter. If you really are deploying a drone or something, it likely doesn't matter either, because a) you need to give your customer the source code anyway, b) your customer will gladly pay the fee for the commercial license -- and c) the project will be classified, so adacore could never legally sue you anyway (without risking indefinite detention as enemy combatants ... ;)