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,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-18 08:39:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: 18 Apr 2002 08:39:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0204180739.4cbea611@posting.google.com> References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204150645.62003096@posting.google.com> <3CBCEB15.E104D1F5@adaworks.com> <4519e058.0204170958.22f797c4@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 1019144371 15951 127.0.0.1 (18 Apr 2002 15:39:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Apr 2002 15:39:31 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22730 Date: 2002-04-18T15:39:31+00:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" wrote in message news:... > Win32Ada was created under a contract which required Intemetrics to make > it available free. So, of course they did so. Moreover, what they > created is NOT pure, portable, Ada, and in fact is NOT available with I had actually noticed that. I figured that either vendors change the appropriate data types and import conventions to fit their compiler, or they all just happened to use the same ones. > "every appropriate compiler" (in so much as it is not included with > Janus/Ada, and in fact doesn't compile with Janus/Ada, either. We of Ahhh, I stand corrected then. Janus is one I haven't ever had a chance to use (my loss, I'm sure). > it isn't much like the Intermetrics one. That's no real issue, as no one > ought to use Win32Ada anyway: for GUI, use Claw or something else; for > the occassional thread or file system API, bind it in place.) I actually agree completely with this. Low-level bindings are just plain ugly to use, and I see no reason why anyone willing to pay for your compiler shouldn't be willing to shell out the extra dough for Claw. I don't really use Win32Ada myself either, for just that reason. At best, I use it as a guide for developing proper bindings to Win32 myself. :-) > on our website.) You may even be able to talk me to widening that more; > the primary reason for the "non-commercial" restriction is to prevent > people from selling the Introductory version itself (or enhancements of > it), not to prevent people from using it in a commercial environment. We > could find any words that covered the one that didn't cover the other, > or get so complicated as to be impossible to understand. Finally we > decided to use a variation on Aonix's ObjectAda license. I guess it depends on exactly what kind of behavior you want to prevent. If you were to use the GMGPL, then anyone who tried to resell Claw (Introductory) would have to compete with thier customer's ability to download it for free from you or someone else, and they could not prohibit further redistribution. They can't change the license. Given that, it would be tough to justify charging significantly more than media costs. It could be argued that such people would be actually doing you guys a favor by helping to expose your introductory version to more users, without you having to go through the expense of making hard copies and mailing them yourself. The worst I can see happening from your perspective is that its use might take off, and development might outstrip that of your full version. If you were to use the GPL (but license the full version however you want, you can do that since its your copyright), then anyone who uses the introductory version would have to GPL their program. This would still allow for "non-commercial use" like the current license does, but it would also allow for commercial use in GPL programs, and more importantly use in GPL programs themselves. Again, people could redistribute and charge for it, but it would have to be under the GPL. You could even release the *full* version this way, and make a non-GPL-infecting license one of the things that you are selling (in addition to support) to customers. The worst that I could see happen here is that some folks might ignore the license and use the GPL CLAW in non-GPL programs, which would require lawyers to get involved. >From my perspective, I'd prefer to see you folks take the first tack. (I'd actually prefer to see you release the full Claw as GMGPL, with paid versions from RR getting media and support, but we've been over that already). But its your perspective that matters. What precisely worries you about doing either of these? -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html