Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<6jSXphU8E$xY@eisner.encompasserve.org>...

> Given that some companies want something that does not have the GPL
> restrictions, Freeware is a mechanism that can expose them to Ada.

Again, the term Freeware is just not sufficiently well defined for
anyone to be able to deduce what you are saying.

When you write software, it is automatically copyrighted. Now the
issue is what license if any will you give, to whom, and what usages
will it allow.

Freeware is not a license, it is just a general term that people use
for what they can get for free.

Now if you are saying that some companies don't like the GPL because
it restricts what they can do, that of course is true, it is not as
restrictive as, say, the Microsoft license (which is why the MS
complaints are a bit peculiar), but it is definitely restrictive.

If you prefer to use a non-restrictive license, e.g. the BSD license,
or you want to completely renounce the copyright and place the work
in the public domain that is perfectly reasonable. The author of any
software, more accurately the copyright holder, since these are not
the same in the case of work-for-hire, is of course free to determine
what licensing conditions to use.

But please don't muddy your point by using the amorphous term Freeware
which says nothing about licensing conditions (some Freeware is indeed
VERY restrictively licensed, in terms of what use it can be put to,
using a much MORE restrictive license than the GPL, and indeed
sufficiently restrictive so that even if the source is provided, the
program does not begin to meet the definitions of Open Source *or* of
Free Software (the MS approach to "open" source is in this category).

If what you want is to encourage the use of a particular license, then
say so, and say what exactly you are encouraging!