Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<+uc0vOZmzK9b@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> In article <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
 
> The first one was my point -- those whose interest is more
> in encouraging use of Ada than in encouraging the use of GPL
> should remember the Freeware route.


You are creating a choice that does not exist. The point of using
the GPL is to ensure that the software remains accessible and
redistributable in source form. Given that it is this accessibility
that allows people to appreciate the effectiveness of Ada, the use
of the GPL is certainly not for its own sake, but precisely because
many of us see this as the best way of encouraging the use of Ada.

Take two possible scenarios ...

1. You write something in Ada, and distribute the resulting binary
as freeware (as previously noted in this thread, freeware typically
refers to binaries distributed free). What possible value can this
have in promoting Ada? None as far as I can see.

2. You write something in Ada, and put in the public domain (it may
just possibly be the case that Larry really meant this when he used
the word freeware), and distribute the sources. Microsoft now takes
the software, translates it into C, and puts it into Windows XP++.
Again how does that help Ada? Not much!

The point of using the GPL is precisely to ensure that the Ada sources
remain available and accessible, and this seems the best way to ensure
that as many people as possible are exposed to the effective use of
Ada.