Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

> There is a third model, where the originator allows others to use
> the software for any purpose without compensation, but imposes no
> restriction like GPL regarding publication of the amended source.
> That third model is often criticized by the GPL fans (because the
> amended source is not available) and by the traditional model fans
> (because there is no compensation to the originator).  On the other
> hand, it is happily adopted by traditional businesses in the case of
> very useful bodies of code, such as Apache.
> 
> I believe the third method (known for years as Freeware)

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01) [foldoc]:

  freeware
  
     <legal> {Software}, often written by enthusiasts and
     distributed at no charge by users' groups, or via {electronic
     mail}, local {bulletin board}s, {Usenet}, or other electronic
     media.
  
     At one time, "freeware" was a trademark of {Andrew
     Fluegelman}, the author of the well-known {MS-DOS}
     communications program {PC-TALK III}.  It wasn't enforced
     after his mysterious disappearance and presumed death in 1984.
  
     "Freeware" should not be confused with "{free software}"
     (roughly, software with unrestricted redistribution) or
     "{shareware}" (software distributed without charge for which
     users can pay voluntarily).

Freeware usually combines disadvantages of the proprietary and free
software development model: there's no source code, and there's no one
to blame for defects.  Freeware is usually not non-copylefted free
software.

Of course, if you want most widespread use of Ada source code, you
should release it under a non-copyleft license (or a copyleft license
with a loophole, like the GNAT-modified GPL).  But if your main
interest lies in writing free software and supporting the free
software movement, copylefting your code is sometimes preferable.