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: 103376,351835e570c46e8b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-21 10:37:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!cyclone.swbell.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3DB43B1E.1C6D99CF@raytheon.com> From: Mark Johnson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Conflicting statements about GPS? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:36:30 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.199.81.25 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1035221849 192.199.81.25 (Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:37:29 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:37:29 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29998 Date: 2002-10-21T12:36:30-05:00 List-Id: John Stoneham wrote: > > I am, surely like most on this ng who use gnat, eagerly awaiting the > any-week-now release of GPS. However, after combing through what I could > find as "official" statements about it (mainly from Robert Dewar), I have > become concerned. One statement clearly emphasised that GPS was "Free > Software", which would benefit from the input of many users, and this raised > my hopes. But the only statements regarding it's release that I could find > referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free. > Well, as a beta tester of GPS, there is nothing I have received from ACT to indicate that GPS would not be made freely available. We have a copy under our support contract and the beta agreement. We have not yet asked for source code - we are quite willing to wait until it is released - thank you. > Maybe I'm mistaken about the "Free Software" reference, but I don't believe > it can be properly labled as such if it is only offered "free" to paying > customers. Nor do I think it proper to call it "Free Software" if it is only > intended to be offered for free after a major upgrade to the paying > customers, and the "free" part is the old version made freely available > after a year or more. But maybe that's just me. > Eh? I guess you should read some of the other responses which more clearly describes what is and is not allowed under the GPL. Let's say I get a copy of the source to GNAT 3.15a1 (under our service contract), ACT does not restrict redistribution. I can choose to freely make it available (e.g., to my customer, others) or not. That meets the license restrictions of the GPL. > And maybe I'm wrong about what the process is going to be, but there is > nothing to tell me otherwise so far. So Mr. Dewar, please correct me if I'm > wrong. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering. > I think you are "wrong" [IMHO] for the reasons mentioned above. Also please note that I'd be surprised if Robert responds on the newsgroup - he has mentioned that he was going to stop monitoring comp.lang.ada. --Mark