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

[tmoran@bix.com]

Thank you for clarifying things:

> > a very low probability of bugs, and then to redistribute it
> > backed with a warranty?
> Yes, of course. Why are you asking questions like this whose
> answer should be obvious if you read the license.
  Sorry, I had looked at the license included in the Gnat library sources,
and not at the line in the NO WARRANTY section of the FSF GPL that does
indeed say the parties may contract in writing for a warranty.

>Noone said you are absolutely free to do anything you want.

>I am talking about end user licenses, and have always made
>that clear.

> and support like "We offer no-cost support for this product,
>...
>ACT, we support GNAT as we distribute it, and will fix any

>By this I mean redistributing the entire product,

>both ACT and MS are selling copies of copyright license with a
>license that places restrictions on the user.

  I'm glad you've now made those things clear.

>I quite understand the kind of arguments people like Tom (CLAW)
  You misunderstand here.  Tom is not CLAW or vice versa.  Tom
has worked on CLAW on occasion for RR Software, but is not an
employee, not an executive, and most certainly not a person with
authority over RR Software licensing terms.  Tom has, however,
read an economics book and recognizes how a monopolist may
increase profits by setting different prices for different
customers.

>Certainly the automatic assumption that a proprietary license
>increases revenues is suspect.
  Agreed. "Give away the razor, charge for the blades" often
brings greater revenues.

>In terms of user benefits, a more permissive license is a clear
>win in all terms.
  Agreed.  But a *differently permissive* license may or may not be a
win, depending on the particular user.