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: <79flvt$f7r$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 441107166
References: <790f4q$3l@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
 <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902010909330.26626-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990201214336.46206A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902020951180.15761-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <36B856E4.D921C1D@bton.ac.uk>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990204161923.93148A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <79cc3q$mms$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner>
 <79do2l$r62$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1999Feb4.230015.1@eisner>
 <79eo76$kkk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79f24e$t14$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x13.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 20:57:40 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: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <79f24e$t14$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> 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 strongly suggest that you *do* read the license agreement
that comes with *any* product. You will find lots of
surprises, and you may well find restrictions that will
indeed cause you difficulties. This is actually *more*
likely to happen with a commercial compiler than in the
case of a GNU compiler.

Why -- because, for example, in the case of GNAT, the
license agreement has been written to ensure that (a) you
have the rights you need and (b) it is easy for you to
ensure that this is the case.

In the case of a proprietary compiler, it is not clear that
(a) or (b) is a goal, and indeed historically many
proprietary Ada compilers, some of which at least are still
on the market, charge run time fees, and do NOT license
free use of generated code.

Better check!!!!!!!!!!!!

(or indeed you can be in hot water)

We have the impression from a number of previous posts that
the environment that Ted works in is, shall we say,
somewhat laissez-faire, but to advocate ignoring license
agreements is definitely going a bit far, and can get you
in hot water indeed.

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