By the way, regardless of licensing, have you looked at the first draft?
what do you think?

-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com


"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F88A577.5000803@noplace.com...
> A license is something to worry about down the road. That's something
> the vendors would have to say something about anyway. At this point I'm
> concerned about the idea expressed by Robert Eachus that a Conventional
> Ada Library be a branch (or several) under the standard library "Ada".
> That is, "Ada.Containers" and "Ada.Statistics" and so on. This would be
> a wonderful thing since it provides something really natural. Except
> that under "normal" rules you are not allowed to extend the package
> "Ada" and you may not have everything you need to do it if you could.
> That's why I'm objecting. Put it under a separate library or change the
> rules for the "Ada" tree so that this is possible to extend and required
> that you get source.
>
> At this point, I'm just stating a perceived requirement that is
> something near and dear to my heart - and possibly others: For a
> Conventional Ada Library, I want to get the source code and I want to be
> able to modify/extend it at will with no special limitations. (Much like
> any of the existing container libraries floating around out there.) If
> Robert Eachus or someone else who is smarter than me (And Robert really
> is *way* smarter than me! :-) can figure out some rule change for the
> package "Ada" that gets me this requirement, I'm happy as a pig in
> fewmets. :-) If that's not possible, then I think a Conventional Ada
> Library ought to exist under its own tree.
>
> I suppose that Robert's suggestion about renamings might be a good
> compromise. Make some "Official" root (Let's call it "CAL") and start
> adding branches (like "CAL.Containers" and "CAL.Statistics") They go
> through some editor/publisher to make sure they meet requirements and
> are released with everyone's compiler in full Ada source. If at a later
> date, the ARG decides that, e.g. CAL.Containers, ought to be part of the
> Ada standard, you just do a "renames" to Ada.Containers (keeping the
> original) and now it is a fully standard, entirely official part of Ada,
> complete with its own chapter in the ARM and a full validation suite.
> That seems like something that ought to work reasonably well. Do you
> think? (It might have problems if it still exists in CAL and the
> end-user can modify it. Leave that to the language lawyers to sort out.
> *That* problem is *waaaaaay* down the road. We can burn that bridge when
> we get to it.)
>
> MDC
>
>
> MDC
>
> Stephane Richard wrote:
> >
> > I think so, seems reasonable for me, but shouldn't it basically depend
on
> > the licence?  or would anything in there have the same licence?  or an
> > OpenSource Based licence so to speak so that it is available?
>
>
> -- 
> ======================================================================
> Marin David Condic
> I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
> My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm
>
> Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g
>
>      "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
>       live in houses just as big as they can pay for."
>
>           --Logan Pearsall Smith
> ======================================================================
>