Re: Development process in the Ada community

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message news:<3CBCEB15.E104D1F5@adaworks.com>...
> Ted Dennison wrote:
>
> > I would submit that this is because the "release it to the public
> > domain" step was never followed through on. If they had done that
> > first, instead of planning on doing it last, things might have been
> > different.
> 
> And who was going to pay Randy and RR Software for their effort in
> developing CLAW?    It is all well and good to want free software,

That's not the issue. Its *an* issue of course, but not the one being
discussed. The issue is how something can become "standard". I can
only see two ways:

1) It is distributed with every appropriate compiler (either by fiat
or agreement). Examples of this are the standard Ada libraries, and
the Win32Ada bindings. Let us not forget that the Win32Ada bindings
are indeed the *standard* low-level Win32 bindings. No one's been
talking about them because low-level bindings are so yucky that no one
really wants to use them. Let us also not forget that the Win32Ada
bindings were created by Intermetrics, a company that, like RR, is in
the business of selling licenses to proprietary software (or at least
was at the time).

2) It is released freely, and is so wonderful compared to the
alternatives that everyone who wants to do that kind of thing goes out
and downloads it.

Now perhaps you are saying that creating a standard is incompatable
with making a profit. I'm not really qualified to answer that, but I
somehow doubt that's the case.

> benefit.   Even GNAT will disappear if ACT discovers there is
> no financial reward in supporting it.

That is wrong. ACT does not own Gnat. Its source copyrights are held
by the FSF, and it is now part of the gcc baseline. As long as gcc is
around, Gnat will be around.


> powerful set of capabilities.   I suspect Randy would not turn down
> any offer of help in developing additional packages to extend the
> CLAW software.

I'm sure he wouldn't. What I'm missing here is what's in it for *me*.
I have no interest in helping to improve some company's proprietary
product, unless I am paid to do so. (and frankly I have plenty of
paying work on my plate at the moment already. I'm not interested in
taking on any more.) I certianly do some volunteer work that involves
using, and perhaps improving, Windows bindings. However, I do that for
the good of the community, not any one party's private good (that's
why its called "volunteer" work).

I've dealt with RR before, and they seemed like a great company, and
great guys. If there were true justice in the universe I'm sure they'd
be swimming in cash by now. But I just can't convince myself that
their stockholders are a worthy enough cause to become the primary
benificiary of my volunteer efforts. I'd rather donate time on
something that everyone in the (Ada) community can use, not just the
select few to whom some company deigns to grant a license.


-- 
T.E.D.
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html