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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c887193050c097ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-07 17:11:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!feed.newsfeeds.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C63247D.6030800@telepath.com> From: Ted Dennison User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge References: <3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de> <3c63113d.351985510@news.cis.dfn.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:11:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.12.51.201 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com 1013130698 68.12.51.201 (Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:11:38 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:11:38 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19743 Date: 2002-02-08T01:11:38+00:00 List-Id: Nick Roberts wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:11:29 -0500, "Marin David Condic" > wrote: > > >>Ummmm.... Excuse my ignorance. "Propetarian"? Couldn't find a definition in >>Webster's and Google turned up nothing. Some kind of legal definition? >> > > I suspect they mean "Proprietary". "Proprietary" wouldn't be quite right, as it implies that the license itself is proprietary, which is certianly not the case for any license I've ever seen. It seems like a proper construction to me for the point they are trying to make, but I agree that the word itself looks horrible.