Next Ada compiler for Debian: the votes so far
Ludovic Brenta
results are not buried in the long thread where the discussion is
being held. Unless someone calls for additional delays, the vote
closes on Tuesday, 2005-09-20 at 22:00 CET. You can vote either
publicly on c.l.a, or by private mail to me. You can also change your
vote until the deadline.
The votes so far:
Voter gnat-gpl gnat-3.4 gnat-4.0 gnat-3.4+patches WAIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Wrigley -1
Andreas Schwartz -1
Björn Persson -1
Brian May 1 1
Chris Danx -1 1
David Trudgett -1
Georg Bauhaus 1
Jacob Sparre Andersen -1 1 2
Jeff Creem -1
Jeffrey Carter -1
Marc A. Criley -1 1 2
Niklas Holsti -1
Samuel Tardieu -1 1 2
Simon Clubley -1 1 2
Stéphane Rivière -1 1 2
Tapio Kelloniemi 1 2
Anonymous#1 2 1 -1
Anonymous#2 -1
TOTALS -11 6 11 0 1
As you can see there is one vote to "wait". I don't know exactly what
Georg means by this.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Ludovic Brenta
open, but so few new votes have been cast recently that the results
can no longer change.
Voter gnat-gpl gnat-3.4 gnat-4.0 gnat-3.4+patches WAIT
Adrian Wrigley -1
Andreas Schwartz -1
Björn Persson -1
Brian May 1 1
Chris Danx -1 1
David Gressett -1
David Trudgett -1
Georg Bauhaus 1
Jacob Sparre Andersen -1 1 2
Jeff Creem -1
Jeffrey Carter -1
Marc A. Criley -1 1 2
Niklas Holsti -1
Samuel Tardieu -1 1 2
Simon Clubley -1 1 2
Simon Wright 1
Stéphane Rivière -1 1 2
Tapio Kelloniemi 1 2
Wojtek Narczynski -1 1
Xavier Grave 2 1
Anonymous #1 2 1 -1
Anonymous #2 -1
Anonymous #3 -1
TOTALS: -11 6 16 0 1
And here is a summary of the arguments that were presented, in no
particular order. In these summaries I've tried not to take sides,
but please forgive me if I've misrepresented your own pet argument.
The text below will appear in the next edition of the Debian Policy
for Ada, in an appendix. If I've missed an interesting argument or if
you think I am being offensive, please correct me. I've tried to keep
the summaries short and to the point, at the expense of nuance.
The anarchist argument: it is immoral for AdaCore to dictate how
libgnat should be used; everyone should be free to use libgnat however
they see fit, and the GPL uses violent but lawful means to make this
impossible. Therefore, everyone should reject the GNAT GPL 2005
Edition.
The Free Software argument: it is immoral to write non-free software;
it is even more immoral to use a free software library such as libgnat
in non-free software. It is appropriate to make this illegal by
releasing libgnat under the GPL. Therefore, everyone should embrace
GNAT GPL 2005 Edition.
The Other Free Software argument: we make Free Software under a
license which is incompatible in some ways with the GPL (e.g. the BSD
license). The GPL prohibits linking libgnat with our software and
distributing our binaries. Therefore, we reject the GNAT GPL 2005
Edition.
The selfish argument: we make commercial proprietary software with
GNAT, but we cannot or will not pay for GNAT Pro. If libgnat is under
GPL, we can no longer distribute our proprietary software. Therefore,
we reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition.
The interoperability argument: our software has to link with non-free
software which is outside our control, and the license of which
prohibits use of GPLed libraries (variant: we link with other Free
libraries which are under licenses not compatible with the GPL);
therefore, we are forced to reject GNAT GPL 2005 Edition.
The betrayed author's argument: I made contributions to the software
that is now supported commercially by AdaCore, with the understanding
that the license was the GMGPL. AdaCore revoked the special
permission without consulting me. While this is specifically allowed
by the GPL, I feel betrayed. Therefore, I reject the GNAT GPL 2005
Edition.
The technical quality argument: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is the best
available Ada compiler. GCC 3.4 is not as up-to-date with respect to
Ada 2006, and GCC 4.0 is less stable. Therefore, we should embrace
GNAT GPL 2005 Edition.
The marketing argument: licensing libgnat under the GPL hinders
promotion of Ada, especially to small businesses. The move tries to
promote Free Software at the expense of Ada. Free Software does not
need much promotion while Ada does. Therefore, we should reject GNAT
GPL 2005 Edition.
*Moving forward*
Given the results of the vote, I will not package GNAT GPL Edition for
Debian.
Given the anticipated timeline for the development of Etch (outlined
below), I can do a one-, two- or three-stage transition.
*Timeline for the development of Etch*
Roughly speaking, the tentative timeline is:
June 2005 - Sarge released. gcc-4.0 enters Etch. Transition from
g++-3.3 to g++-4.0 begins for all C++ binaries. Other transitions
also begin, some of which are completed already today.
September 2005 - Java and Treelang compilers, and some libraries from
gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 removed from Etch.
April or May 2006 - GCC 4.1 released, and enters Etch soon thereafter.
If good enough, becomes the default C, C++ and Java compiler, and
gcc-4.0 is removed from Etch. No ABI transition: GCC 4.0 and 4.1 are
both supposed to have the same ABI as 3.4.
September 2006 - toolchain freeze. Only release-critical updates
allowed for gcc. No ABI transitions allowed, i.e. shared libraries
may not change their soname anymore.
October 2006 - general freeze. Only release-critical updates allowed
for all packages.
December 2006 - Etch released.
*Possible scenarios*
One-stage transition, between May and September 2006, to gnat-4.1.
Pros: less work for me. GNAT 3.15p remains available for longer for
those who need a reliable ASIS and GLADE. Cons: Etch users must wait
another 8 to 12 months. Must port ASIS and GLADE from GNAT GPL to a
new compiler back-end: help required, I cannot do this by myself.
Two-stage transition to gnat-4.0 in October-December 2005, and to
gnat-4.1 as above. Pros: more immediate support for amd64, powerpc64
and several other platforms. More immediate availability of Ada 200y
features. Cons: immature Ada 200y features. The compiler may prove
less stable than 3.4. Must port ASIS and GLADE from GNAT GPL to a new
compiler back-end: help required, I cannot do this by myself. More
work.
Three-stage transition to gnat-3.4, then gnat-4.0, then gnat-4.1.
Pros: stable compiler. Allows a fall-back in case the transition to
gnat-4.0 proves difficult. More immediate availability of new
platforms and some Ada 200y features. ASIS and GLADE are probably
easy to port from GNAT GPL Edition. Cons: the Ada 200y features in
gnat-3.4 are already obsolete. Still more work to do.
Any thoughts, offers to help, advice?
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Ludovic Brenta
change the bottom line.
Voter gnat-gpl gnat-3.4 gnat-4.0 gnat-3.4+patches WAIT
Ali Bendriss 1
TOTALS: -11 7 16 0 1
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Björn Persson
> Three-stage transition to gnat-3.4, then gnat-4.0, then gnat-4.1.
> easy to port from GNAT GPL Edition.
I understand how they would probably be easy to port to 3.4, but do you
really mean that it would be easier to port them to 4.1 in this scenario
than in the one-stage and two-stage scenarios?
--
Björn Persson PGP key A88682FD
omb jor ers @sv ge.
r o.b n.p son eri nu
Dr. Adrian Wrigley
<various arguments cut>
I think the following aren't in your list:
The FUD argument: by having an unusal and restrictive licence for
the users' executables, people will be forced to read and understand
the detail of the licenses, consult lawyers, perhaps change their
distribution plans, now or in the future. The GMGPL versions
are simple, creating no fear, uncertainty or doubt over their use.
Choosing the GNAT GPL 2005 incurs extra risk, cost and effort to comply.
The damage to the GMGPL versions: if distributions and users move
to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the GMGPL
versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded. This is likely
to be a major disbenefit for those needing GMGPL versions.
Supports ACT policy of withdrawing Ada technologies from free use:
makes it more likely that GtkAda, GLADE, AWS etc will be completely
unavailable in fully free (GMGPL) form, pushing the costs of using
Ada well beyond those of comparable technologies. ($$$$$, instead of <$$)
It's not what users expect: users of free compilers expect to be able to
use their compiled code in any manner they see fit. This is true of
all of the mainstream languages (C, C++, etc). The surprise aspect
focuses attention away from the benefits of Ada, and may also result in
accidental violations of the licence.
--
I think it is likely that the situation will worsen rapidly over the
next few years, with the effect that there will be *no* fully free
Ada 2005 compiler and *no* fully free GtkAda, GLADE, AWS, ASIS, Florist
either. The benefit (if any) to ACT will be negligable, but the disbenefit
to Ada and the user community will be significant. Already it is a
challenge to obtain a complete suite of tools that isn't seriously
obsolescent :(
A quick check of Gtk and other Gtk bindings find C++, C#, etc all are
fully free (so just using them places no additional restrictions
on the executable). Ceasing development of the unrestricted Ada
bindings just puts Ada further out on a limb as a weird,
impracticable or expensive option. People don't expect free
language interface to a free (LGPL) library to result in legally
encumbered binaries.
How much would you have to pay ACT to make regular public releases of
GNAT with libraries under the GMGPL style licensing? Even just every
two years would be sufficient. Logically, it needn't cost more than
the cost of the work involved plus profit margin plus any expected
loss of profit by it being made available. Couldn't a sponsor be found?
The DoD invested huge amounts in the past. Sponsoring fully free
releases of GNAT would be one of the best ways of retaining and
enhancing the value of their investment.
Unfortunately, the issue will be constantly with us until current,
fully free versions of the software are available. I hope this will
not be too long.
--
Adrian
Simon Wright
> The damage to the GMGPL versions: if distributions and users move
> to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the GMGPL
> versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded. This is likely
> to be a major disbenefit for those needing GMGPL versions.
I don't know whether _you_ believe this -- it's worth noting that the
people who pay AdaCore are paying for a GMGPL compiler, it has to cost
AdaCore (even if only a little) to make a GPL release.
BTW, what's the licensing on the GAP sources?
Ludovic Brenta
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> > Three-stage transition to gnat-3.4, then gnat-4.0, then gnat-4.1.
> > Pros: [...] ASIS and GLADE are probably
> > easy to port from GNAT GPL Edition.
>
> I understand how they would probably be easy to port to 3.4, but do you
> really mean that it would be easier to port them to 4.1 in this scenario
> than in the one-stage and two-stage scenarios?
Well, it was late in the evening and my mind was getting sloppy. I
meant
to say that ASIS and GLADE could be ported to 3.4, and provide a
fall-back
in case subsequent porting to 4.0 or 4.1 proved difficult. Also, the
porting effort to 3.4 would allow me (and anyone who contributes) to
gain some valuable experience with them, thus making porting to 4.0 or
4.1 less difficult.
I forgot to mention the other possible two-stage transition: to
gnat-3.4
starting in October 2005, then directly to 4.1 in May-June 2006. The
more
I think about it, the more it appears to provide the best balance
between
risk (3.4 acts as the fall-back solution), platform support, Ada 200y
features, and workload. The first stage would not be intended to bring
Ada
200y, only new platforms, because as I said the Ada 200y features in
gnat-3.4 are already obsolete; the second stage, to 4.1, would provide
up-to-date Ada 200y features.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Dr. Adrian Wrigley
OK. This was unclear. I was referring to the freely available
(public) GMGPL versions, not the paid-for GMGPL versions.
The evidence suggests that ACT no longer intends to freely distribute
the GMGPL Ada technologies discussed by periodic public releases.
Compilers based on the widely distributed GMGPL sources seem to
be seriously lagging ACT's paid-for GMGPL compilers, lacking
fixes and enhancements.
--
Adrian
Try:
>> The damage to the GMGPL versions: if distributions and users move
>> to the GNAT GPL 2005 version, it becomes less likely that the
>> public GMGPL versions will be adequately maintained and upgraded. This
Steve Whalen
issues to be included in the Debian log (or whatever it's called).
It would be nice if a sponsor could be found to pay AdaCore to do GMGPL
releases periodically, but I'm starting to wonder if AdaCore/ACT always
intended to "go proprietary" as soon as they could. With as "soon as
they could" being whenever another "version" of Ada was standardized
that was NOT called Ada95.
During the first 5 years or so of GNAT's life AdaCore seemed to
genuinely believe in the benefits of having a completely free compiler
available, at least they convinced me. Of course they may just have
been saying it because the DOD was paying them to make a free compiler
available and so they had to.
It's my understanding that the GNAT Ada95 compiler was basically built
with DOD $$$ on the condition that it be free for all uses and users
(but ACT and others were free to charge for support as long as a
compiler remained free). This specifically included the libraries being
under a LGPL / GMGPL type license.
If the Ada2005 compiler from ACT is built primarily on the Ada95
compiler (as opposed to a complete rewrite of the compiler code and
support tools) then I think AdaCore is coming pretty close to violating
the spirt (but I'm sure not a lawyer's reading) of the DOD contract
that created GNAT.
By "closing" off the creation of commercial applications with the GPL'd
Ada2005 compiler the Ada2005 compiler would no longer meet that
requirement of the original Ada95 DOD compiler contract.
I hate to see this happen to what I think is one of the best decisions
made by our Department of Defense (creating the free Ada95 compiler to
help offset the removal of the "Ada mandate"). What AdaCore is doing
certainly seems to violate the spirit of the contract that enabled the
creation of GNAT (unless of course the Ada2005 compiler uses none of
the work product created under the DOD Ada95 contract in the Ada2005
compiler: my understanding is that Ada2005 contains a lot of Ada95 code
but I haven't compared them).
The bottom line is that neither GNAT nor AdaCore would exist without
that DOD contract for Ada95. Something sure has changed: here's a
lengthy but relevant quote from Robert Dewar from about 10 years ago
(for anyone who doesn't know who he is, I'll keep it simple and call
him one of the principle architects and driving forces behind the GNAT
compilers up through at least release 3.xx and probably beyond):
(quoting from comp.lang.ada:
Robert Dewar Aug 2 1995, 12:00 am)
...
For example, the contract between NYU and the Federal Government
requires that the compiler be distributed uner the GPL and LGPL.
Suppose instead that it had been distributed under the public domain.
In that case, Ada Core Technologies (or any other company, but this
most often happens with the original authors) could take the existing
PD product, continue to develop it, market it at whatever price the
market would bear, and treat it as a fully proprietary product.
This would presumably be fine for those willing to pay big $$$ for Ada
products, and might indeed make the GNAT authors richer. This scenario
has certainly played itself out with other products that were initially
in the public domain.
The trouble is that then, although the public domain version continues
to exist, it languishes, and pretty soon, is left in the dust by the
commercial version, and people find themselves forced to pay high
prices or left in the cold.
The nice thing about the use of the GPL is that it entirely prevents
this from happening. If someone pays SGI, or ACT, or any other company
to enhance and maintain GNAT, then all the improvements and changes are
guaranteed to be available to those who need an Ada compiler to work
with but do not need commercial level support. This is a much better
model for the whole community I think.
Yes, of course it is the case that other Ada vendors would prefer to be
able to grab public domain stuff without being encumbered by the
restrictions of the GPL, so of course they would prefer that all the
volunteers out there provide them with free code they can use. That's
perfectly understandable.
Now if this continued fredom were achieved at the expense of seriously
limiting use of the resulting software, that would be an unfortunate
side effect. In a world with no proprietary software, they there would
be no issue. In recognition of a more practical world in which free
software and proprietary software continue to co-exist, the modules of
GNU C and G++ are distributed with four different levels of licensing
ranging from the GPL, to completely unrestricted, with two other levels
in between. The status of each module is chosen to achieve an
appropriate balance between trying to maintain the free availability of
the software and trying to maintain its reasonably unrestricted use.
This has been quite comfortably achieved with GNU C, which has been
used by a wide variety of users in a wide variety of commercial and
technical settings, and there is no reason to think that GNAT will not
be able to achieve the same appropriate balance.
(end of quote)
I think AdaCore/ACT has lost that "appropriate balance".
Steve
Ludovic Brenta
> Thanks for this summary. I think these are by far the most
> important issues to be included in the Debian log (or whatever it's
> called).
The Debian changelog is specific to each package, so I'll put this
into a new version of the debian-ada-policy package.
> It would be nice if a sponsor could be found to pay AdaCore to do
> GMGPL releases periodically, but I'm starting to wonder if
> AdaCore/ACT always intended to "go proprietary" as soon as they
> could. With as "soon as they could" being whenever another "version"
> of Ada was standardized that was NOT called Ada95.
AdaCore has not "gone proprietary", GNAT is, remains and will always
remain Free Software.
[...]
> It's my understanding that the GNAT Ada95 compiler was basically
> built with DOD $$$ on the condition that it be free for all uses and
> users (but ACT and others were free to charge for support as long as
> a compiler remained free). This specifically included the libraries
> being under a LGPL / GMGPL type license.
If memory serves, that that was done at the insistence of the NYU
team who wrote the software, and then formed AdaCore. But I wasn't
there so I cannot say for sure.
> By "closing" off the creation of commercial applications with the
> GPL'd Ada2005 compiler the Ada2005 compiler would no longer meet
> that requirement of the original Ada95 DOD compiler contract.
The GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is an *additional* service rendered at no
cost to people who develop GPL software. This service consists in the
compiling, packaging and validation of the entire tool chain.
The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is
still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has
just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software.
If some "greedy proprietary capitalist" now complains that the
convenience of a recent and validated binary distribution has been
removed from them, that's correct but I think it is immoral for them
to complain that they can no longer *conveniently* enslave and bind
their customers into captivity.
They can still enslave and bind and make things inconvenient or
impossible for their customers, but now they have to go through some
inconvenience themselves. They deserve it.
I do feel sympathy for Free software developers who wish to distribute
their programs under non-GPL but Free licenses. The "interoperability
argument" is powerful.
> (quoting from comp.lang.ada:
>
> Robert Dewar Aug 2 1995, 12:00 am)
[...]
> Now if this continued fredom were achieved at the expense of
> seriously limiting use of the resulting software, that would be an
> unfortunate side effect. In a world with no proprietary software,
> they there would be no issue. In recognition of a more practical
> world in which free software and proprietary software continue to
> co-exist, the modules of GNU C and G++ are distributed with four
> different levels of licensing ranging from the GPL, to completely
> unrestricted, with two other levels in between. The status of each
> module is chosen to achieve an appropriate balance between trying to
> maintain the free availability of the software and trying to
> maintain its reasonably unrestricted use. This has been quite
> comfortably achieved with GNU C, which has been used by a wide
> variety of users in a wide variety of commercial and technical
> settings, and there is no reason to think that GNAT will not be able
> to achieve the same appropriate balance.
>
> (end of quote)
>
> I think AdaCore/ACT has lost that "appropriate balance".
I think that 10 years have passed since that quote, and free software
has now reached a state where it no longer has be nice to proprietary
software developers. The special permission was granted only for
practical reasons, which I think have now largely disappeared.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Samuel Tardieu
Ludovic> Steve Whalen a écrit :
>> It's my understanding that the GNAT Ada95 compiler was basically
>> built with DOD $$$ on the condition that it be free for all uses
>> and users (but ACT and others were free to charge for support as
>> long as a compiler remained free). This specifically included the
>> libraries being under a LGPL / GMGPL type license.
Ludovic> If memory serves, that that was done at the insistence of the
Ludovic> NYU team who wrote the software, and then formed AdaCore.
Ludovic> But I wasn't there so I cannot say for sure.
What was done at the insistance of the NYU team? Build a Free
Software compiler? I am quite certain it was a DoD requirement.
Sam
--
Samuel Tardieu -- s...@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam
Stanislav Tsekhmistroh
> The GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is an *additional* service rendered at no
> cost to people who develop GPL software. This service consists in the
> compiling, packaging and validation of the entire tool chain.
>
> The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is
> still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has
> just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software.
Ok then. Where GNAT 3.15 can be downloaded now? ACT don't give such an
opportunity any more :-(
Where is CVS tree? Where GNAT 3.15 is hosted?
The worst is that, IMHO, ACT pretends that there is no such
compiler at all.
Ludovic Brenta
> Ok then. Where GNAT 3.15 can be downloaded now? ACT don't give such an
> opportunity any more :-(
Debian still contains binaries of gnat 3.15p. Also:
ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/Ada-Belgium/mirrors/gnu-ada
ftp://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/pub/mirror/cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat
ftp://ftp.fsz.bme.hu/pub/ada/gnat
Get it quickly before it disappears.
> Where is CVS tree? Where GNAT 3.15 is hosted?
The CVS tree is at https://libre2.adacore.com/cvsweb/ and gcc.gnu.org.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Dr. Adrian Wrigley
> The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is
> still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has
> just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software.
The problem is that this will no longer compile "Ada" next year,
since "Ada" will mean the new standard. GNAT 3.15p will become about
as useful as a free Fortan 66 compiler.
(and the situation is worse with things like GLADE, and GtkAda, the
GMGPL versions of which will become obsolescent)
--
Adrian
Ludovic Brenta
>
>> The creation of commercial applications is not closed off; anyone is
>> still free to use GCC or GNAT 3.15p. The additional convenience has
>> just not been provided to those who want to do proprietary software.
>
> The problem is that this will no longer compile "Ada" next year,
> since "Ada" will mean the new standard. GNAT 3.15p will become about
> as useful as a free Fortan 66 compiler.
>
Ada 95 will remain just as useful as it is today. It will not become
less powerful, it will not lose features, and it will not suddenly
cause your software not to work anymore.
The only thing that can make GNAT 3.15p obsolete and break your
software is a policy decision by the maintainers of the platforms
where your software runs. When Microsoft decided to kill DOS, people
who made DOS software had to move on or be left behind.
But what is the platform that you are targetting today, and that
concerns you? If you distribute proprietary software, you can always
make your own platform, or distribute GNAT 3.15p binaries with your
software.
> (and the situation is worse with things like GLADE, and GtkAda, the
> GMGPL versions of which will become obsolescent)
This is speculation; the GMGPL version is in AdaCore's public CVS
repository and nothing indicates that their license will change, or
that they will notbe maintained anymore.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Simon Wright
> The problem is that this will no longer compile "Ada" next year,
> since "Ada" will mean the new standard. GNAT 3.15p will become
> about as useful as a free Fortan 66 compiler.
It is reasonably unlikely that my work project will upgrade to an 05
compiler. For a start, it would only cause us grief, since the product
is being developed in Ada95; as an example, we have loads of packages
named <something>.Interface!
Dr. Adrian Wrigley
> Ada 95 will remain just as useful as it is today. It will not become
> less powerful, it will not lose features, and it will not suddenly
> cause your software not to work anymore.
OK. It won't suddenly lose capability, rather it will suffer from
"bit rot" and obsolescence. Ten years from now it will not be used.
> The only thing that can make GNAT 3.15p obsolete and break your
> software is a policy decision by the maintainers of the platforms
> where your software runs.
Upgrades to the platform present a threat. For example, moving to
x86-64 with 64-bit pointers. Or whatever comes next. And major
upgrades to C libraries, other compilers etc. can cause maintenance
problems too.
My argument is that 3.15p is *obsolescent*, not *obsolete*.
> But what is the platform that you are targetting today, and that
> concerns you? If you distribute proprietary software, you can always
> make your own platform, or distribute GNAT 3.15p binaries with your
> software.
I am targeting x86 Linux. I use 3.15p and GLADE (and other Ada libraries)
There are bugs in both of these tools which bring me problems.
My next machine will be x86-64 to get increased addressing and speed.
I should probably go to a dual Opteron, GNAT GPL 2005, PolyORB etc.
but the time, cost and upheaval will be significant. I want to
be confident there will be real benefits and the tools will all work
properly together.
I am not distributing my software at present, so I don't have a
direct interest in the choice of Debian compiler. I run Debian
and Red Hat at present, but I'm considering moving to all Debian.
In future, I may want to distribute Ada binaries or source, and
don't want the opportunity to be obscured by changes in licensing
of the Ada libraries.
What I'd like to see is a new version of GNAT and various libraries
to become predominant. A version suitable for all purposes.
A version with full Ada 2005 support, when possible.
A version for all the main Debian platforms. (I also run an Debian
ARM system sometimes). With robust Annex E and ASIS support.
I fear this this will not happen. And I don't think ACT is
minded to make it happen. But I may be mistaken.
>
>> (and the situation is worse with things like GLADE, and GtkAda, the
>> GMGPL versions of which will become obsolescent)
>
> This is speculation; the GMGPL version is in AdaCore's public CVS
> repository and nothing indicates that their license will change, or that
> they will notbe maintained anymore.
Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree, but it was commented
earlied in this group that the 'exception' clauses for GtkAda
and one or two other libraries had been removed. I haven't
seen this myself. I had got the impression, however, that
GLADE wasn't being maintained. Checking the AdaCore CVS suggests
I am wrong on this. But activity is moving to PolyORB,
which doesn't seem ready for mission-critical Annex E use.
Am am still confused about ASIS and GLADE licensing.
On 15 Sep 2005 01:44:16 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Please take into account that recent versions of ASIS and GLADE are
> only available under GPL, not GMGPL. The same is true for AWS,
> GtkAda, XML/Ada etc. but is less of a concern because these libraries
> are not tightly coupled with the compiler.
but as you say, the versions in AdaCore public CVS *are* GMGPL (I checked
this). Was your earlier post a mistake? Or is it more complicated than
that?
I had been particularly concerned earlier, since the COPYING file has
no exception, but as was pointed out, the exception need not be mentioned
there, and the concern was misplaced.
Maybe as time progresses, we'll see that AdaCore will support a new
"unversal" GNAT and libraries all under GMGPL type licensing.
Let's hope so.
--
Adrian
Ludovic Brenta
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> But what is the platform that you are targetting today, and that
>> concerns you? If you distribute proprietary software, you can always
>> make your own platform, or distribute GNAT 3.15p binaries with your
>> software.
>
> I am targeting x86 Linux. I use 3.15p and GLADE (and other Ada
> libraries) There are bugs in both of these tools which bring me
> problems. My next machine will be x86-64 to get increased
> addressing and speed.
>
> I should probably go to a dual Opteron, GNAT GPL 2005, PolyORB etc.
> but the time, cost and upheaval will be significant. I want to be
> confident there will be real benefits and the tools will all work
> properly together.
With GNAT GPL 2005, there is no guarantee but if I were you I would
trust AdaCore for a distribution of excellent quality. If you trust
the platform, a lot of the pain of migration goes away. But you are
right: all transitions are painful.
> I am not distributing my software at present, so I don't have a
> direct interest in the choice of Debian compiler. I run Debian and
> Red Hat at present, but I'm considering moving to all Debian. In
> future, I may want to distribute Ada binaries or source, and don't
> want the opportunity to be obscured by changes in licensing of the
> Ada libraries.
So, you've been complaining loudly against the GPL for libgnat,
because of the remote possibility that you might someday decide to
distribute binary-only software?
Since you use both Red Hat and Debian, you know first-hand how much
better Debian is, especially as an Ada development platform. But
using Debian is dangerous. For one thing, it is addictive, and for
another, when comes the time to deploy your binaries on other
platforms, you'll find they lack half the Ada libraries you need, and
that the other half (which they do provide) are buggy.
You can solve this problem in a number of ways:
* Target Debian and only Debian, which runs on 12 hardware
architectures anyway. Who needs anything else than Debian? Make
sure your target is the latest stable release of Debian, not
"testing" or "unstable", and you'll get the additional benefit that
the platform will not move constantly.
* Assume that your targets provide *no* Ada support; assume they only
conform to the Linux Standards Base (i.e. a certain glibc and a
certain GCC compiler for C and C++, but no Ada). Link your binaries
statically against libgnat and any other Ada libraries you require,
making sure that you use GMGPL sources of these libraries (either
from GNAT 3.15p or from CVS).
* Assume your targets provide GCC 4.0 with Ada support, but no ASIS,
no GLADE and no other libraries. The rest is as above.
> What I'd like to see is a new version of GNAT and various libraries
> to become predominant. A version suitable for all purposes. A
> version with full Ada 2005 support, when possible. A version for
> all the main Debian platforms. (I also run an Debian ARM system
> sometimes). With robust Annex E and ASIS support. I fear this this
> will not happen. And I don't think ACT is minded to make it happen.
> But I may be mistaken.
If I were AdaCore, I would feel deeply offended by the mass rejection
of the GNAT GPL 2005 Edition that occured on this forum, and by the
pervasiveness of the "selfish argument". So, I wouldn't count on
AdaCore going out of their way to please the people who complained.
If you don't want to use GNAT GPL 2005 Edition, then you have to fall
back on plan B, namely Debian Etch in your case.
Debian Etch will support amd64 and several other hardware platforms
beyond those supported in Sarge (namely i386, powerpc and sparc).
Debian Etch will have some Ada 200y features, but probably not all.
This depends on how GCC 4.1 turns out.
ASIS will probably work. I'll take it from Martin Krishik's
SourceForge project because that's GMGPL.
GLADE will probably not work at first. I'll take it from AdaCore's
CVS and try to compile it against GCC (3.4, 4.0 or 4.1, not decided
yet). I will probably ask you, Adrian, for help in this area.
Debian Etch will not be as good as GNAT GPL 2005 Edition, and it will
arrive much later. But it will support amd64.
> Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree, but it was commented
> earlied in this group that the 'exception' clauses for GtkAda and
> one or two other libraries had been removed. I haven't seen this
> myself. I had got the impression, however, that GLADE wasn't being
> maintained. Checking the AdaCore CVS suggests I am wrong on this.
> But activity is moving to PolyORB, which doesn't seem ready for
> mission-critical Annex E use.
The special permission has been removed from the GNAT GPL 2005
Edition. If you take the sources from CVS on gcc.gnu.org and
libre.adacore.com, you still get the GMGPL. Therefore, if you want:
* the latest GNAT
* Ada 2005
* amd64 support
* the latest libraries
* support for all "x86 linux" distributions
* and the GMGPL,
then go get the sources and compile them for yourself.
I will do the same thing but only for Debian. You may choose to wait
(several months) until this happens, or help me with it. And please
understand that no matter what, it won't be as good or as
up-to-Ada-2006 as GNAT GPL 2005 Edition.
> Maybe as time progresses, we'll see that AdaCore will support a new
> "unversal" GNAT and libraries all under GMGPL type licensing. Let's
> hope so.
I think it is a mistake to hope so. It is much more productive get
down to work and build our own GMGPL platform.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
Frank
Dr. Adrian Wrigley
Thanks for your views and analysis here. And thank you
for devoting so much time and effort packaging for Debian
and cavassing opinions on the way forward.
I think in general people are taking a wide view on what
would be good for Ada, GNAT and the community. The narrow
selfish arguments are mainly used by the few who are directly
affected.
Perhaps by the end of the year, I'll have an amd64 system to
transition to, and try to help in building a set of compilers
and libraries to match.
In the mean time, I have to focus on building my business
(with is not software development, let alone building tools).
--
Adrian
Stanislav Tsekhmistroh
>
> ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/Ada-Belgium/mirrors/gnu-ada
> ftp://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/pub/mirror/cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat
> ftp://ftp.fsz.bme.hu/pub/ada/gnat
>
> Get it quickly before it disappears.
Thank you! (and thanks to God!)
I thought that we have loosed GNAT 3.15p completely :-)