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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a875d9649dde34e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!prodigy.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:02:48 -0400 From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GWindows and a future home for it References: <2004100609152216807%david@bottoncom> <1097075228.200924@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: KBC Financial Products Message-ID: <1097085768.512568@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10 X-Trace: 1097085768 2671 204.253.250.10 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4820 Date: 2004-10-06T14:02:48-04:00 List-Id: Marius Amado Alves wrote: > The problem is that open source licensing is unadjusted to what you > really want (which is usually to charge for certain uses of the > software) or to a fair rewarding of the authors. ACT does not appear to be unhappy with using the GPL. It uses it even for new products, such as GPS. So it must be what they really want, or they wouldn't do it. > And you must resort to subtrefugial, convoluted, parasitic commercial > schemes like the "request" or dual licensing. When I buy toys, they often come labeled with warnings that they contain small parts and are thus unsuitable for children under age three. When my son was younger than three, sometimes I would let him have these toys anyway, and sometimes I would not, depending on my judgement as to their safety. The labels absolved the toy company from responsibility for use of the product in a way they deemed unsuitable, while allowing me the freedom to use them as I wished. None of the adjectives you use apply to this circumstance, nor to the similar labels on GNAT Pro. ACT maintains that versions of GNAT Pro are suitable for the customer who gets them, and not necessarily for the public at large, because development and testing are done for particular customers on particular platforms. Anyone who chooses to disregard this is perfectly free to do so, but then ACT takes no responsibility for the suitablity of the results. > The problem is that open source licenses treat the software like a physical > thing. Maybe there is no unsolvable problem really, but it is so clear that > the open source licensing is unadjusted and unfair, that now and then I just > have to step in and try to shake those irritating pink hearts. Apparently the authors do not find it unfair, since they persist in making more free software. Apparently their paying customers are satisfied, since they are in fact paying. As far as I can tell, everyone is perfectly satisfied with these arrangements, except for people who seem to want the benefits of being an ACT customer without actually becoming one.