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-Thread: 103376,9a5f3bd162009c01 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:32:54 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050817) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005: Too clever by half? References: <70e0e$4331acfc$4995583$14979@ALLTEL.NET> <87hdcew7wq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1127511077.919641.107390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <43357152$0$16476$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 2005 17:31:30 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 185e2f45.newsread4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=8lif[5MPhIQMYeRE0Pb_HU:ejgIfPPldTjW\KbG]kaMXXY;eg@jLYe\<[nmYnX2?PZhP3YJKgE\j\@Xg?=E=WS7Y X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5103 Date: 2005-09-24T17:31:30+02:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > An average > developer might not give it two seconds of thought and just assume that > the compiler used to generate machine code from his code doesn't impose > some sort of ownership rights or restrictions on his code. ACT can > impose any restrictions they like, but I think that makes their compiler > significantly less useful - and they should make it CLEAR to everyone > running the compiler that by using it, they just got infected. The most widespread free C++ compilers by Microsoft and Borland do impose restrictions on what you are allowed to do with the compiled code, and what you have to do. In the case of GPL, and only GPL, you speak about licensing as if it were a desease, when in fact every license just regulates. For contrast, consider this extract from END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE MICROSOFT VISUAL C++ TOOLKIT 2003 "... (ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows platforms;" Technically, I could say this is no less viral, in particular since .NET assemblies are supposed to be runnable not just on MS Windows. "1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the Software (i) for your internal use; (ii) for designing, developing, testing and demonstrating your software product(s); and (iii) for evaluation of the Software." It is not clear to me how I can conclude form this that I am free to use Microsofts free compilers in production use. And who would expect that I am free to use Microsoft products for free, and without restrictions? (After all, someone must have payed them some money, given their wealth.) If you can't use the GPL, as you mention, there are other supported Ada compilers, and FSF GNAT. For trying out compilers, what is wrong with choosing FSF GNAT or taking an evaluation offer? > Perhaps there's a good capitalist business opportunity here? Always has been.