Re: Win32Ada

[dewarr@my-dejanews.com]

In article <72pcj5$eg6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <72inaf$8it$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dewar@gnat.com wrote:
>
> > Direct government funding does not guarantee data
rights
> > to the public or the government. Indeed even in the
case
> > of GNAT, which was only partially funded by the
government,
> > there is absolutely nothing to stop ACT from deciding
not
> > to distribute further versions, or to distribute
further
> > versions with some proprietary components. Nothing that
is,
> > except ACT's commitment to free software. The contract
with
> > the government, long ago terminated, has nothing to say
at
> > this point.
>
> Yes, but wouldn't the GPL have "something to say"? My
understanding is that
> GPL'ed software cannot be taken private, or bestowed with
private components.



Once again, as has often been pointed out here, the GPL
has nothing at all to say about distribution, and the fact
that ACT continues to make public distributions of GNAT is
not dictated by the GPL!

As for components, you certainly cannot make modifications
to GPL'ed software without the result being GPL'ed, but if
the components are separate programs (GLADE, ASIS, and
other tools), there is absolutely no reason to make these
GPL'ed except that ACT has a policy of doing so!

Indeed a common method for proprietarizing things if that
is what you want to do, is to build separated components
that are proprietary, e.g. libraries, runtimes, tools etc.
This is not just theory, it has happened on more than one
occasion!


Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own