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: 103376,58988230753075de X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-30 13:33:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In praise of Ada Freeware Date: 30 Jul 2001 13:33:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0107301233.66e4c147@posting.google.com> References: <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <+uc0vOZmzK9b@eisner.encompasserve.org> <5ee5b646.0107291409.6538ad64@posting.google.com> <6jSXphU8E$xY@eisner.encompasserve.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 996525211 14026 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2001 20:33:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-support@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Jul 2001 20:33:31 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10783 Date: 2001-07-30T20:33:31+00:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<6jSXphU8E$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!