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: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future Date: 1999/02/05 Message-ID: <79f24e$t14$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441002513 References: <790f4q$3l@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <36B856E4.D921C1D@bton.ac.uk> <79cc3q$mms$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner> <79do2l$r62$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1999Feb4.230015.1@eisner> <79eo76$kkk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 05 15:18:49 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <79eo76$kkk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote: > 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. > > 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. Technicly, yes that's true. But we are talking actual practice, here. Lets take the very popular VisualC++ compiler as an example here. It comes with a very lengthy license that is prominently displayed during installation. Now let's have a virtual show of hands. How many people here have ever read the entire license carefully to make sure that it provides them the legal right to do what they want to do with the code it produces? I predict I won't see a lot of hands. Why not? Well, I'm no sociologist, but it appears folks *trust* Microsoft to not restrict the commercial use of the code developed with their tools. As you yourself point out, putting the same trust in random open-source tools would be foolhardy. The fact of the matter is that I'm a S/W engineer and not a lawyer. The thought of possibly rendering several man-years of my own and other people's work useless due to my own misreading of a license is pretty chilling. For myself, I think the benifits of open-source software tend to be worth the risk. But I can certianly understand the position of those who don't agree. T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own