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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-26 04:52:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <403DEBFA.4040604@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com> <1077738852.81775@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:52:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.3.59 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1077799938 209.165.3.59 (Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:52:18 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:52:18 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5839 comp.lang.c:24140 Date: 2004-02-26T12:52:18+00:00 List-Id: That may all be true, but its not as if you (or any company) has some God-given right to source code (or anything else one might define as an "Economic Good"). When a company acquires a software product, they are usually aware of the terms and conditions. If you don't like those conditions, buy a different software product. Or build one yourself. I'm not out to chastize anyone here, but sometimes we seem to develop an attitude that because one product is available in "Open Source" and free of any charges to acquire & use it, that this means *all* products should be that way. If *all* software should be that way, then the person who doesn't have what they want should be required to build it and give it away. But that would cost money? How should the company who sells the non-Open-Source software product come up with the money? MDC Hyman Rosen wrote: > > My company is in the middle of trying to purchase the source code > for an application we use heavily. The application uses a GUI library > from a vendor who is no longer in business, and the company which owns > the application doesn't have the source for the GUI library. We are > trying to find out who does own the library - we think it's some > compnay in Brazil, but we haven't been able to contact them yet. > > Not having the source for this application has cost us man years of > wasted effort, and now it looks like the "traditional economic model > for software" may doom our attempts to get the source altogether. -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================