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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mark Carroll <mtbc@bcs.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:02:37 +0000
Organization: none
Message-ID: <87bnmd8mg2.fsf@ixod.org>
References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad>
	<199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com>
	<87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com>
	<87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<d865c2cd-dd78-4dd9-8ca5-7526bc781faf@googlegroups.com>
	<87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<bb6afd60-da67-4b0a-93ca-2921b985cc3e@googlegroups.com>
	<m8ds96$po2$1@news.albasani.net>
	<79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="1b3e5cba9e4d07a53741e6f3d1717925";
	logging-data="478"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192IUPqlRCXNRGRiNy7nhA2"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4DrhKn3cqNaoxygrOBjewzYqw64=
	sha1:nMZfguGEVumBGDQ8wd6vIO81rS8=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24361
Date: 2015-01-05T12:02:37+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David Botton <david@botton.com> writes:

> Demos are usually fully featured and the issue is the impression others will have of the availability of Ada. If the impressionion is Ada is available only for open source or high end niche that leaves most of the world in the middle. That is not Ada advocacy that is harmful.

Out of curiosity, am I correct in understanding that we have the GPL one
available at all only because of contractual requirements negotiated by
the DoD? If so, does it actually satisfy their intent? I wondered if
there is some other niche for it that they had in mind.

-- Mark