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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f7344,3307180c36b2ddde
X-Google-Attributes: gidf7344,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,818bb9686cf8adae
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Dec Ditching Ada?
Date: 1996/09/07
Message-ID: <50qkqh$f1o@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178988921
references: <1996Sep5.092514.1@eisner> <dewar.841979749@schonberg>
 <1996Sep6.091045.1@eisner>
organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.os.vms
Date: 1996-09-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <1996Sep6.091045.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>I know there is a quote from the Red Queen about words meaning what
>I choose, but in my lexicon GNAT is not commercial in that there is
>no limit to how many systems I use it on (absent any service agreement
>concerns).

You are free to use words in any way you want, but when people are
trying to communicate, it's important to use words in a consistent
manner.

My dictionary defines "commercial" as "of or relating to commerce".

Since there exists a company whose sole business relates to GNAT, it's
very hard to see how it could not be viewed as "relating to commerce".

On the other hand, "proprietary" means "exclusively owned, private".
Indeed, GNAT does not meet this definition.

>You may ask why I should care, and I believe the answer is that with
>the GPL-support economic model, you are not making enough money for me
>to feel comfortable. 

I find this peculiar.  It's very rare for a compiler to be profitable
by itself.  Instead, it's an entry to some other business, such a
hardware, CASE tools, or support.  GNAT is no exception.