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,a996db867563769d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!2a02:590:1:1::196.MISMATCH!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:00:52 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A few questions on Ada and Ada implementations
References: <87oc8gqr04.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <ce79973d6df3d5dba78b647179ee61a1@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
In-Reply-To: <ce79973d6df3d5dba78b647179ee61a1@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d10dd44$0$6974$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Dec 2010 18:00:53 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: de51f8c2.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=8_eO74d^d8OWDmlTRbh@=I4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKQAOO[X1i<CNnc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jM8>MA2oX1SUA
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:17069
Date: 2010-12-21T18:00:53+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 21.12.10 14:42, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> All well and good but your beautiful source could still be available if you
> used a BSD or MIT license, wouldn't it not? The only difference is what
> happens next.
> 
> gcc-Ada is great but what happens when they pull the plug and change the
> runtime to GPL instead of LGPL? I'm coming to see I'll need many other
> components to write a viable product and those may not be available with
> licenses I'm happy with.

I think I see your point; in any case, I'd consider what will
happen if the owners of any sort of licensing right pull
the plug.
Their plug.
Run-time royalties and pricing in general have been changed
in the past such that one would have to look elsewhere;
companies have terminated business;
companies have been acquired;
companies have changed policies;
patent fees can be requested as needed;
etc.
There are "subject to change" phrases.

So the next release of GMGPL software now being GPLed
is not at all special in this regard: any kind of (licensing
or business) change may happen.  Any change may make me
need human resources that produce the software I need.
In a free market I can hope for competition.
In terms of land, labor, capital, availability of source
is something to build on, at least, regardless of the license.

The trade secret issue seems another matter to me,
and, without judging the matter, is what really
drives the GPL fear, I think.