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 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: 2001-08-08 08:06:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:54:52 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9krjs2$fqb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kosp0$dje$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9kpq82$otf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9krak1$3f4$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997282498 16203 136.170.200.133 (8 Aug 2001 14:54:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Aug 2001 14:54:58 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:11618 Date: 2001-08-08T14:54:58+00:00 List-Id: I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. If what you mean is that your company would pay to have some product developed (cost plus) and that it would Open Source (some flavor of GPL?) the end result, I'd have no problem with that. That's a work made for hire. Take the end result and do whatever you like with it. The rest is a matter of what and for how much. If you are suggesting that perhaps a consortium of companies could/would fund the development of some software product that they all wanted and would pay salaries to the programmers and would eventually Open Source the end result, I'd again have no problem with it. It comes down to the Golden Rule. He who has the Gold makes the Rules. :-) If you're suggesting that someone build you what you want and you'll give them some modicum of cash and they keep the end result with the hope that they can find some additional buyers, and one of the conditions is that the source be provided to you with minimal restriction? I certainly don't object. But it again comes down to what and how much? If the "what" is a million SLOC of specialized code suitable only to your particular company and the "how much" is $0.50, I don't think you'll find many takers. My only objection to the Open Source thing is the notion that I as a software developer should do all this work and give it away with no thought as to remuneration. (That somehow it is "dirty" or "impure" to expect to earn a living from making {Sacred Music, please} *Software!*) This is especially onerous in my mind if someone else is going to take the software I write and sell it in some way and never give me a nickel. I'm not opposed to Open Source - in some cases that may make very good sense. (BTW, depending on what you mean by "Open Source" - something done under the ADCL might just qualify. You get the source. You don't have to pay for it. You can use it and modify it freely. You don't have to ADCL your code by using ADCL code. You just can't sell it without giving the original author something in return. Maybe this isn't "Open Source(tm)" - but it certainly is visable, usable, modifyable source at no cost - until you decide to resell it.) 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/ "Georg Bauhaus" wrote in message news:9krak1$3f4$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de... > And, now speaking for my company, we have actually once made > a somewhat more substantial offer for the development > of open code that we wouldn't own, and everyone could use. > Could that be an option for you, in principal? > >