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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.unix.amiga:136 comp.lang.ada:4787
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Amiga UX and Ada
Message-ID: <2661@sparko.gwu.edu>
Date: 31 Jan 91 22:07:30 GMT
References: <549.27a32b94@vger.nsu.edu> <743@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <16098@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <1991Jan29.051947.27478@lavaca.uh.edu>
Reply-To: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu ()
Followup-To: comp.unix.amiga
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1991Jan29.051947.27478@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes:
>
>>Of course, I know some people who would be perfectly willing to use
>>inexpensive unvalidated Ada compilers, or even not-quite-Ada, since
>>then development could be done on workstations, etc.
>
>I actually have considered writing a ada-subset (keep in mind that
>"Ada" is legally protected to  the point that you can't sell
>an "Ada compiler") compiler, but I can't justify the time expenditure.

I think your information on this may be outdated. The government has
allowed the trademark to lapse; the essence of it is if you want to sell
unvalidated Ada and I want to buy it, Uncle Sam shouldn't stop us from
making a deal. _Validated_ Ada is required for _government_ software,
but for nongovernment work the government does not get involved any more.
Ada is _no longer_ "legally protected"; the trademark lapsed in 1988.
IMHO, the government did the right thing.

Mike Feldman