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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f891f,7be483be03d93e95 X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,7be483be03d93e95 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor) Date: 1996/02/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140311795 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.misc Date: 1996-02-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jon Anthony said > > "I don't understand how this is true. Since Gnat is under FSF > copyleft, and its sources are easily obtainable, and part of the > _intent_ of it was that universities and others would have a readily > available Ada compiler to do language experiments with, I believe that > it does indeed fit this perspective. Now clearly that is _not_ what > will happen to the standard adhering, ACVC validated evolving versions > of it maintained by ACT, but that seems a different point." > > Yet it is true. Surely people can play with extended versions of the > language in their own copies, and if they like distribute them, but > at least so far, the version maintained by ACT with the FSF copyright, > is exactly Ada 95, and NOT an extension of it. Let me get this straight. It _seems_ then that you are saying that the term "GNAT" only applies to the FSF copylefted Ada95 compiler now maintained by ACT. And that the sort of experimentation I mention is just fine, but the result could not be termed/called GNAT. Is this right? Or is there something I am still not getting? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com