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: 103376,25457a5aee9eaa04
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.234.38 with SMTP id ub6mr6957027pbc.2.1338217016809;
        Mon, 28 May 2012 07:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni58872pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!78.46.240.70.MISMATCH!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.arcor.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: 
 <1962744539359908272.324914rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2
References: <jpvo0q$1on$1@dont-email.me>
 <VD7TY4DO41057.9046643519@reece.net.au>
Date: 28 May 2012 14:56:55 GMT
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 May 2012 16:56:55 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: fdf12ac1.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=ESf7[mGDHb`016@cHD@m;j4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk:5mIKIh2\okPCY\c7>ejVhA[dRXKmTP]hX9NQjlnNVIf
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-05-28T16:56:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kulin <remailer@reece.net.au> wrote:
> "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Le 28/05/2012 12:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov a Ècrit :
>>> This release is packaged for Windows, Fedora (yum) and Debian (apt). The
>>> software is public domain (licensed under GM GPL).
>> Just to be picky: if it's licensed under GMGPL, it's free software, but
>> it's not public domain.
> 
> Just to be picky,

In this case the discussion hinges on the word "free"
and its uses with software. Since there is no single
definition of the word "free", discussions will necessarily
lead into morass. The GPL is openly stating the restrictions
it imposes on the uses of a work (tit for tat at the source level).
The more permissive licenses do that, too (for example,
"keep us out of it"). The sets of "may (not) do this or that"
terms are different.

There is a profitable way of discussing whose perspective
on "free" is right. It is when one can turn discussions
into money and/or advertisements, such as through journals
or in fora of market research organizations such as
Google, or Facebook. There is less to be had from discussing
"freedom" on c.l.Ada, I should think.