Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux

[Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>]

In article <8h1747$i4a@drn.newsguy.com>,
  bill@new wrote:
>
> Why deal with all this mess of GPL, when one can download
> freeBSD which is all free?

Assuming this is not meant as a troll, which might well be
the case, then the answer is straightforward. Authors choose
to use the GPL to ensure that derived works remain all free.

The trouble with freeBSD, is there is nothing to stop R. Dewar
or anyone else making nonfreeveryexpensiveproprietaryBSD with
some small changes.

We want to ensure that all future versions of GNAT remain free!



There is no "mess" with GPL, though I agree some of the
obfuscation in this thread could be misinterpreted in this
manner. The GPL is really quite clear, and quite effective.

Usually I only see complaints or worries about the GPL from
those associated with manufacture of proprietary software.
Those people would of course prefer a BSD like license to
the GPL license, because then they can use the software in
their proprietary products.

Let's take a specific example. At one point Tartan suggested
the possibility of joining the GNAT front end with their
proprietary backend to make a proprietary result. We told
them they couldn't and that was that! On the other hand, we
know of important cases where major manufacturers are open
sourcing important code generators so that they can properly
use GPL'ed front ends.

Anyway, the important thing to remember is that the author
of software decides on the licensing, and the only reasonable
response anyone else can have to a license is to either
decide that you like the software and license, and acquire
it, or that you don't and decline!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.