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,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-21 08:59:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: 21 Apr 2002 08:59:08 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204210759.95e7c2a@posting.google.com> References: <5ee5b646.0204201657.3f26f187@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019404748 8268 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2002 15:59:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Apr 2002 15:59:08 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22865 Date: 2002-04-21T15:59:08+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:> The GMGPL is quite different from the GPL. The GPL > significantly restricts what I can do with GPLed > software, in a way that other licenses > commonly don't. You are setting up a strawman here. For tools, like Powerpoint say, it is absolutely clear that similar tools that are GPL'ed give you uniformly MORE rights than Microsoft (or any other similar company would give you). For libraries, it is standard (and recommended practice) to use a license like the GMGPL, and when this is done the same comment applies. So the practical situation in the world is that Free Software virtually always comes with uniformly more rights. Tom, you certainly have a motive to argue against the use of the GPL, GMGPL etc, since you work for a company represented by someone who has "philosophical objections" to the GPL, and you have chosen to work on software that most definitely is not free software. I understand this, and as I have said before I strongly support people's right to use any license they please. But if you argue that your licensing policy is in any sense superior from a users point of view, let's have the argument on the basis of the real and not the imaginary :-) Please compare CLAW with any commercial free software library, and describe the manner in which CLAW provides more rights. That seems a fair challenge to me, I am allowing you to pick absolutely any commercial free software, it does not have to be GNAT (I perfectly well understand that you might be able to find some non-commercial software that was rerstricted, but that's really comparing apples and oranges to me). It's misleading nonsense to say flatly "McDonald's is > less restrictive than Hamburger Hamlet because it lets me order an Egg > McMuffin".