Comment by copx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by copx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>I think it is helped by having a FOSS reference compiler (GNAT)

It should be noted that the free version of said compiler may only be used to produce software released under a GPL compatible license. This is unusually restrictive and rules out Ada for most people right away.

It is either Free Software only or an expensive commercial subscription to AdaCore's services. I mean the "expensive" is a guess, but given that they do not list prices on their website but ask you to contact their sales department, we can assume they are far from cheap.

In a world where you can develop commercial, closed source software in all popular languages using free tools this seems anachronistic. I understand that AdaCore needs to make money somehow and this is probably the best business strategy for them, but still, it seriously limits the appeal. The appeal of Ada in general too, because it seems there is no (truly) free, modern Ada compiler.

Interestingly enough the situation seems to be similar for most of the failed languages of days gone by. If you look for implementations you only find DOS era stuff and X thousand dollar "solutions" which milk the enterprise/government legacy code market.

> 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.

>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/#licensi...

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 ... ;)

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.

I believe the GNAT-FSF Ada compiler included as part of GCC (as distinct from the GNAT-GPL compiler that can be downloaded directly from AdaCore) can be used to create non-GPL software, see -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT#License

I read that a few times (and a few times in the past) and I find it more difficult to comprehend and reason about than the programming language itself. So, if I build something today and I want to distribute it WITHOUT distributing the source - can I do it? Yes, or no?

This is the bit that you need to pay attention to:

> The GMGPL license in either GNAT Pro runtime or GNAT-FSF runtime permits software that is licensed under a license that is incompatible with the GPL to be linked with the output of Ada standard generic libraries that are supplied with GNAT without breaching the license agreement.

If you use the version of GNAT provided as part of GCC from GNU (which is a year or so behind), or the paid-for version of GNAT from AdaCore, you can distribute your program without distributing the source. If, however, you use the GPLed version of GNAT from AdaCore, your own code has to be distributed under something compatible with the GPL.

The Wikipedia article could do with a cleanup, really.

There's a version of GNAT distributed by GNU, about a year behind AdaCore's version, which allows you to use the Ada libraries without your program coming under the GPL.

In the markets that Ada is used, the prices are a drop into the ocean.

There are required certification processes in place that most FOSS will never pay.

For example, if you go the C or C++ route, the code has to be validated against the MISRA standard, with specific tooling.

This is another game league than the app of the day thing.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Not long ago HN discussed a very interesting project based on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7656300 ... and I didn't realize GNAT was so constrained.

While composing this I noticed other comments trying to clarify the situation, I'll have to check for myself, which is not a good way to "do business".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com