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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ti-eg.CSNET"!"SVDSD::PETCHER
From: "SVDSD::PETCHER@ti-eg.CSNET".UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Ada reuseability
Message-ID: <8703141936.AA20993@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10-Mar-87 15:16:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8703141936.AA20993
Posted: Tue Mar 10 15:16:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Mar-87 04:33:03 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Regarding Ed Berard's comments on software reuseability:

There are some aditional roadblocks in the way of reuseability.  While 
electronic engineers have been able to freely obtain integrated circuits 
without anybody worrying about who has the "rights" to the design, the same 
has not been true for software.  The government tends to demand complete 
rights not only to embedded operational software, but also to all tools 
required to maintain it.  This tends to prevent software designers from 
reusing modules from sources who believe they have a vested interested in 
their software design (as do chip makers in their chip designs.)  This is 
worsened because distribution of source reveals 100% of the design information 
on a software module, whereas corresponding information (schematic, electrical 
characteristics, etc) for an integrated circuit reveals virtually nothing 
about the process technology required to make it.  Certainly no company would 
want to invest money in development of generic reuseable software modules if 
it means the very first time they use a given module on a contract that module 
is swept into the public domain.

Malcolm