Perhaps this isn't the right place to have this discussion, but since you mentioned it... GPL software is just fine for two different groups, hobbyists and certain large corporations. Hobbyists love it 'cause they don't have to worry about making a profit, and they love having leverage from ever-larger toolsets. (I'm in full agreement with them, btw.) Certain large corporations love GPL software when it helps them to do internal-only development, and when they do development for the government. Either way, it's a net gain for them, it lowers costs AND they don't have to worry about other people taking over their market niche. Now, consider a small to middle sized company. The business model is either B2B with just a few customers, or B2C with (hopefully!) hundreds or even thousands of customers. Two things allow these businesses to maintain their market position, the customer base (which can change overnight!) and the technical base. If someone got a copy of their source code, then the company could be out of business overnight. True, it's possible to sell GPL software, but then it's not really the software that you're selling. It's other associated expertise. But just imagine what would happen to Microsoft's Word profits if the source code suddenly made it's way into the public domain. With that kind of software associated expertise isn't really a sellable item, and so profits from Word would evaporate. I'm sure Microsoft would survive, but a little company wouldn't. And imagine trying to sell associated expertise for a game! A new game company might be in a bad position with the current Ada situation, having to choose to make their game GPL (no profits) or choose to use a price-inflated compiler (up front costs). But, once past that hurdle, Ada would be very suitable... If only AdaCore would re-think that darn license or charge a reasonable amount, I'm convinced that the demand for Ada people would skyrocket! In summary, by releasing software as GPL instead of just releasing it as free, all you've managed to do is make things nicer for hobbyists and the big guys. Are you sure that is what you intended? Brian "Pascal Obry" wrote in message news:47775D59.3070002@obry.net... > Phaedrus a �crit : >> Just a few things will have to change before it's worth-while. You're >> right, only one real compiler exists and it's horribly expensive for >> commercial work. (Isn't it interesting that they claim to only charge for >> "support", but then force anyone who uses the free compiler to release >> their >> developed software for free? *sigh*) Along that line, a lot of current >> Ada >> packages have been infected with the dreaded GPL-itis. That make them >> unusable for commercial stuff, too. But mostly I think that it's the >> nature >> of the mindset behind a lot of packages that would need to change. >> Getting >> those 50 - 60Hz updates isn't easy! > > Sorry but this is full non-sense. You oppose GPL and commercial but it > is just ok to have a commercial GPL software. > > Pascal. > > -- > > --|------------------------------------------------------ > --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member > --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE > --|------------------------------------------------------ > --| http://www.obry.net > --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" > --| > --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595