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: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: pdl@jeeves.la.utexas.edu (Paul Lyon) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/08/21 Message-ID: <5tich7$ro6$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 265798246 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Organization: Liberal Arts Computer Lab, U. Texas, Austin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-08-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar (dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu) wrote: : Actually it would be very nice if there was more experimental activity : with GNAT in terms of interesting new experimental ideas, but so far : we haven't seen much of this -- hopefully we will see more in the future, : this is after all why the sources are available (and why the DoD insisted : on the sources being distributed under the GPL!) I'm curious. What say had the DoD in GNAT? Was the possibility of experimental activity with the compiler the only reason the DoD insisted on having the sources distributed under the GPL? There is a certain economic sense to goverment support of free software as has been argued in gnu.misc.discuss recently; in this connection, it would be useful to know what the DoD's take on the GPL was. Ciao, Paul -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Lyon | "Without true justice Liberal Arts Computer Lab | there can be no peace." University of Texas at Austin | Lucretia Coffin Mott email: pdl@la.utexas.edu | 'phone: 512-471-5121 *** fax: 512-471-1061 | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=