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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d171ebc7489c6b9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Licensing, again
Date: 3 Jul 2006 07:41:57 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1151937717.839207.216050@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
References: <mailman.202.1151683802.13640.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
   <mailman.19.1151934892.30988.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.190.145.10
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1151937723 20429 127.0.0.1 (3 Jul 2006 14:42:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.19.1151934892.30988.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; fr-FR;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 SEVPXS01
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.190.145.10;
   posting-account=ZjNXewwAAADyBPkwI57_UcX8yKfXWOss
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5434
Date: 2006-07-03T07:41:57-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Carroll, Andrew wrote :
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> >What is "correct" open source licensing? Libraries licensed under the
> >GPL are "open source" all right, as per the OSI definition.
>
> Well, you seem to know more about it than I do so maybe you can tell me
> what the "correct" open source licensing is/should be.  It sounds to me,
> from the posts about the licensing, is that the licensing changed and
> the new licensing does not meet many people's needs.  Hence the question
> about developing a compiler that does meet the people's needs;
> specifically the open source community.
>
> >
> [snip]
> > See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing

Read that page. I really mean it. Have you read that page? Really?

Also, see
http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html#How-the-Ada-compiler-for-Etch-was-chosen

again, I really mean it when I say "see this page".

The recent discussion did not apply to libgnat but to the other
libraries from AdaCore: AWS, ASIS-for-GNAT, GLADE, XML/Ada, and above
all, GtkAda. The arguments, for or against, are the same.

You also seem to have an implicit definition of "people's needs" which
I think you should explain better.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.