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,c15a8d7f9770bcd8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-08 07:25:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaBrowse 1.5 available Date: 8 Apr 2002 07:25:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0204080625.7004a69b@posting.google.com> References: <4519e058.0204040903.47f037bc@posting.google.com> <4519e058.0204050817.a26f70b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1018275912 31761 127.0.0.1 (8 Apr 2002 14:25:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Apr 2002 14:25:12 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22219 Date: 2002-04-08T14:25:12+00:00 List-Id: Thomas Wolf wrote in message news:... > dennison@telepath.com wrote: > > For the most part, they are irrelevant to Ada. When I looked into it > > for one of my projects, the only one that seemed like it would be an > > issue was the requirement to keep all documentation in texinfo format. > > A no-can-do for me. If it ever gets into the gcc tree, somebody else > will have to do that (and maintain it). That was exactly my reaction when I was told about it. With a few more months under my belt, I'm now thinking it isn't that big of a deal though. There are apparently tools to convert texinfo into just about any format around, including html. In fact, that seems to be the whole point. One can use it as sort of the "sources" for the HTML docs, and build the HTML docs as part of the system build. Now I'm not pushing you to do this; that would be quite hypocritical, as I haven't done it for any of my projects either. I'm just saying I personally don't see it as such a problem after thinking about it for a while. > > Ouch. I thought it was all GPL. That could be a serious problem. > > I wasn't aware that the FSF thinks the ACL (or the Perl Artistic > License) had problems. I just chose the ACL because it seems to work > well for the Ada 95 Booch components. To be precise, they have problems with the original Perl Artistic license. They don't have big problems with the "Clarified Artistic License", the "Artistic License 2.0" (which they say no one uses), or the current license that Perl uses. To see the full discussion of this, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html . > out, accomplish the same goals. So I changed the licenses on these > few files (easy to do, since it's all mine -- no third parties > involved). AdaBrowse 1.51 (now at the URL > ) > contains all these changes (code clean-up and using the GMGPL instead > of the ACL for the generally useful files). It has also a simple > Makefile now. Great! -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html