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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,effb80d4bb7716dd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future
Date: 1999/02/05
Message-ID: <1999Feb4.230015.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 440867428
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <790f4q$3l@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
 <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902010909330.26626-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990201214336.46206A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902020951180.15761-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <36B856E4.D921C1D@bton.ac.uk>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990204161923.93148A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <79cc3q$mms$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner>
 <79do2l$r62$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 918187218 13140 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <79do2l$r62$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes:
> In article <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner>,
>   Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
>> Because the variety of meanings of the word "free" covers
>> some things that cannot be included in commercial
>> software.  At some point it is easier to reinvent the
>> wheel than to spend life pretending to be a lawyer.
> 
> 
> This is nonsense obfuscation.
> 
> It is perfectly possible for open source software to be
> licensed in such a way that it can perfectly well be
> included in commercial software. To imply otherwise is
> a common marketing trick by those involved with proprietary
> software, but it is bogus.

And _that_ is non-responsive.  My complaint is not that any
particular meaning (e.g., those terms chosen by GNAT) is not
compatible, but that everyone who has a different idea seems
to come up with their _own_ license terms for "free" software,
and at least some of those are not compatible with commercial
use.

Sure it is "perfectly possible", but it is certainly not
"always done" with all software labeled "free" that is
discussed in this group.

For other constituencies, such as academic researchers, the
restrictions may never matter.  Even Robert Dewar has twisted
a discussion of "free" software into one of "open source"
software.  Certainly "free" has a very loose set of meanings,
and that is exactly the point.

Larry Kilgallen