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: 103376,effb80d4bb7716dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future Date: 1999/02/05 Message-ID: <79eo76$kkk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 440959131 References: <790f4q$3l@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <36B856E4.D921C1D@bton.ac.uk> <79cc3q$mms$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner> <79do2l$r62$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1999Feb4.230015.1@eisner> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x12.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 05 12:29:33 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <1999Feb4.230015.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > And _that_ is non-responsive. My complaint is not that > any particular meaning (e.g., those terms chosen by GNAT) > is not compatible, but that everyone who has a different > idea seems to come up with their _own_ license terms for > "free" software, and at least some of those are not > compatible with commercial use. And why not, the same is true for proprietary software. You might just as well have said "My complaint is not that any particular meaning (e.g. those terms chosen by Microsoft) is not compatible, but that everyone who has a different idea seems to come up with their own license terms for "proprietary" software and at least some of those are not compatible with commercial use." So what???? Yes, of course for any use (I have no idea what you mean by commercial use), you are *legally* obligated to check carefully before you use someone else's software that you are legally entitled to do so, otherwise you may be violating the copyright law. Some people may have the completely wrong idea that this step can be skipped with "free" software, but they are plain mistaken! So what's the complaint here? That everyone does not decide to license their work on the same basis? Why on earth should they? The copyright holder has a perfect right to decide on the license conditions. Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own