"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F8816EB.1010009@noplace.com...
> I understand and anticipated that there would be a valid reason for not
> allowing extensions to Ada. That's why I raised the issue and was
> looking for something that would get around that.
>
> Note that the ARM doesn't appear to say "Thou shalt provide a mode under
> which a common, ordinary, garden-variety user can extend and modify
> packages under Ada...". Hence there may not be. There may be no source
> delivered for things under Ada. There may be no method provided to
> recompile the source even if it is provided. The source may not even be
> in Ada - it could be in C or assembler or in Jovial for all that the
> standard has to say about it.
>
> I think its essential that the end user have the library in source code
> and be allowed to play with it. If you figure out a way that this can be
> done, I'll accept that. I just want a guarantee that whatever tree it
> gets built under, I get the whole source for the tree and can modify or
> extend anything in that tree. Is that a reasonable requirement for a
> library?
>
> MDC
>

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