Re: An Ada IDE and discussions

["Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com>]

http://www.acm.org/sigada/ada_letters/March1999.html  has an abstract of the
article. However, you'd need to contact Dr. Leif for the original. He posted
his address elsewhere in the group: rleif@rleif.com

As for when something is open source and when it isn't, I guess you could
get into definitional wars. If there is such a thing as "OpenSource(tm)"
then the owner of the (tm) can define it any way they like and maybe that
excludes the ADCL. However, from my reading of the ADCL and my maybe more
"broad" interpretation of the meaning of "open source" I think you still
have that. In some ways, its more "open" because AFAIK, it doesn't require
that use of ADCL software automatically makes the using software ADCL - no
"infection". (Maybe you'd consider that "bad" - I'd look at it as making the
software more generally useful.)

Anyway, I don't think that would stop you from using your code at work any
more than the GPL would stop you. Not unless you are making a product that
is going to be sold to someone.

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/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:%Fk57.23889$Kf3.323037@www.newsranger.com...
>
>
> I'd like to see it (I don't suppose its online anywhere?). But if it
> discriminates against certian types of users, or requires any kind of
royalty
> for any distribution of it, it is *not* OpenSource (according at least
points 1
> and 6 in the defintion - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html ).
>