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: 103376,30a9bb3017fa58dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,959627a08fbc77c5,start X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: Glen Subject: Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Date: 1999/04/21 Message-ID: <371DF7CE.C7D7C1F@spam.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 469178353 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3718ccb6.3581307@news.mindspring.com> <3718d384.254178@news.pacbell.net> <1999Apr20.073527.1@eisner> <7fi2k3$lv9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <371C99DD.F15ADC4B@spam.com> <7fkkoi$ui$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: spameater Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: spamwithchipsplease@spam.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > In article <371C99DD.F15ADC4B@spam.com>, > SpamSpamSpam wrote: > > > When someone asks > > > for the latest version of PowerPoint, they are not > > > asking > > > for the development version that some team in Redmond > > > is using to test out their latest additions and fixes > ... > > > > Yes indeed, but then Power Point isn't GPL software .... > > So what? Why should the license under which sotware is > distributed affect anything with respect to proper quality > control ... And just what affect does releasing "Betas" to the public haveon ACTs quality control ? does your source code suddenly become degraded or "infected" by the efforts of others ? Are your paying customers so stupid as to take copies from unoffical sources ? No. And what about non-beta "professional" versions of GPL software which are distributed to customers long before the glitch free version of the "public" release appears? how does restricting their distribution affect quality ? And just how long where glib2 public users kept waiting for the "public" release of a GPL work available to paying support customers ? glitch free ? > or are you under the illusion that if I decide > to use the GPL as a license it forces me to distribute > untested stuff? You didn't decide to use the GPL, the code came with the GPL, anyadditions you made (and chose to release) HAD to be GPL. > If so, this is a misprehension. No, its your misrepresentation, just a spin todivert from the fact that ACT cannot release a non GPL GNAT. > The GPL > is a license for limited use of software, How does it limit my use, except for trying to make it proprietary ? > certainly more > generous than the corresponding license for limited use > used by Microsoft, but again, so what? Microsoft prohibit me asking a fellow for a copy of the latest version of power point, the GPL allows anyone the right to give me or anyone else the latest version. This "not till its glitch free" is crap, you restrict a GPL work and all that might be learnt from such betas and an open testing, bug reporting, knowledge base, to protect your only asset, which isn't the compiler because you don't own it ( please don't talk about the version you keep under your bed at ACT, which okay you do own ) its the knowledge.