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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.200.198 with SMTP id ju6mr4935856obc.26.1418238542543; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:09:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.82.106 with SMTP id g97mr28325qgd.27.1418238542509; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:09:02 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!h15no6978925igd.0!news-out.google.com!r1ni49qat.1!nntp.google.com!s7no5534958qap.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:09:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <96c5722f-c446-44ff-a445-48fbc184c11b@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.138.108.48; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.138.108.48 References: <6c8e0d3d-20e2-42c1-b2d3-826faca0d019@googlegroups.com> <96c5722f-c446-44ff-a445-48fbc184c11b@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <206f8168-639b-4fd6-b90e-590ccb2f11ac@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Cairo bindings and e-mail license virus bombs From: David Botton Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:09:02 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2316 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3487965520 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23946 Date: 2014-12-10T11:09:02-08:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:58:34 PM UTC-5, sbelm...@gmail.com wrote: > A license is not an inherent part of a file (any file); the license is so= mething you and the vendor agree to, whether via a webpage, handshake, sign= ed contract, or whatever.=20 I am not questioning that. The points given are: 1 The file states a license and then random statements raise questions on i= t. 2 The purposeful muddying clarity of license for corporate benefit at the e= xpense of others I doubt legally anyone using source files that state a license clearly as t= hese do can be called to question that they are in violation of another lic= ense not stated if fulfilling the terms of the stated license in the file. While it would be nice if AdaCore released their code libraries under GMGPL= , I don't care if they do or do not, others will come along and just write = new ones if need be. What needs to change is purposeful muddying of waters = and clarity through out to stop damaging Ada advocacy (and open source) for= one company's personal benefit. David Botton