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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,828c115241d90eca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-18 08:45:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!154.32.99.10.MISMATCH!psiuk-p2!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADCL Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:57:29 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9j484p$4ht$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 995468249 4669 136.170.200.133 (18 Jul 2001 14:57:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2001 14:57:29 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10164 Date: 2001-07-18T14:57:29+00:00 List-Id: I have absolutely no problems with whatever ACT wants to do with their software. They can license it any way they like and they have to make their decisions based on what they think will benefit them the most. For some software products, this model may make perfect sense. A compiler is a specialized kind of product and making it open source under GPL might be the best way of enhancing its commercial potential. My concern is with a different kind of situation - a small-time software developer might put out some useful subsystem that someone else might leverage into a commercial product. In that situation, the small-time developer needs some means of getting some remuneration from the effort or it discourages further efforts in that area. Why should some small-time developer subsidize the development of someone else's commercial product and gain nothing? I agree that the possibility of *some* reward is better than the possibility of *no* reward. That's why I like the ADCL concept and would like to see it advance. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote in message news:mailman.995434878.2543.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > > However, the simplest argument for the ADCL is that something, even if it is > only a possibility, is better than nothing. Since the ADCL requires little > or no cash investment from a developer who reuses another developer's code, > it is a better model for commercial software development then one where > commercial development requires significant upfront costs. The owners of ACT > have every right to disagree with me and quite possible could be correct in > their market, which is a compiler. Lastly, since several members of the Ada > community were educated as chemists, ADCL reduces the potential energy > barrier and thus catalyzes commercialization of Ada. >