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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,577c9f9c0cdd76d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Confusing language, was Re: Help help.. please.i am totaly new in ada programing Date: 1999/11/05 Message-ID: <7vvpoo$fj7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 544935311 References: <7vphsr$tlk$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7vqgs2$lcc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7vsgjk$aeh$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Nov 05 23:38:00 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-11-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7vsgjk$aeh$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, Richard D Riehle wrote: > I think the source for CLAW is pretty much open. That is, > when one purchases a copy of CLAW, it seems the source code > comes with it. If the new licensee wants to modify the > source, there is little to prevent it. THat's not what I mean by open source, i mean OSS certified, as defined on their website, this is the general sense in which Open Source is used these days (yes yes, anyone can use it it in any sense they like, which is why I am clearly defining that I am talking about OSS certification). > The issue with CLAW is that it is a product. Randy Brukhardt > spends long hours alone in his office working on this product. > The only financial support he receives is when someone buys a > copy of his product. In this sense, there is no way to make > it free. Well there are counter examples to this claim, GNAT is one of them. > It takes money to develop software. Where does the money come > from? It can come from selling the software or from support and consulting services for the software. > In the case of CLAW, it comes from those who license the > product, as nearly as I can tell. Someone has to pay for > Randy's time for developing CLAW and keeping it up to date. Sure and selling licenses is one way to make money off software, providing support services is another. > A product for sale must provide some benefit over one for > free. Sure, that is true whether the product is a software license or software support. > Randy's effort certainly fits that criteria. We have clients > who are licensees of CLAW and like its total Ada approach to > Windows programming. I certainly agree that it is a nice approach. That is why RR is a tools partner of ACT, and we have several customers making use of CLAW > I personally like its use of Ada 95 features that are > not available in the C++ based MFC, or the thin Ada bindings > from other sources. Again I agree > It seems to me that the compiler publishers are > missing an opportunity by not bundling CLAW as part of their > Windows 95/98/NT products. It would certainly make those > products more attractive for Windows programming. We prefer to let our customers make the choice as to which tools best suit their needs. Note that I absolutely agree that it is important that CLAW generate sufficient revenue to allow its continued support and development. It's always tricky to decide which model is best for this. It may be the case that the support model is not applicable here, but on the other hand this may not be the case, who knows? Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.