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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-18 13:16:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!ams-newsfeed.speedport.net!newsfeed.speedport.net!colt.net!newspeer.highwayone.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!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: An Ada IDE and discussions Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:30:12 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9j4o47$b5a$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <0zS27.187213$DG1.31590366@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com> <3B4FEFDE.10E7B423@snafu.de> <9iuvsd$361$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j12ic$bvi$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> <9j1ee8$258$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j21sv$9ka$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j45h0$3ho$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9j4g2a$802$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <%Fk57.23889$Kf3.323037@www.newsranger.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 995484615 11434 136.170.200.133 (18 Jul 2001 19:30:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2001 19:30:15 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:10195 Date: 2001-07-18T19:30:15+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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 ). >