In praise of Ada Freeware

In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

Some advocate using GPL licensing for software because it makes it
more available to others, regardless of vendor changes of heart.
In many cases they believe a revolution in the nature of software
licensing and distribution is appropriate.

Some advocate using traditional licensing because it better fits
the general economic model for other goods (aside from recipes :-).
In many cases they feel it will be better accepted by the existing
business establishment.

There is a third model, where the originator allows others to use
the software for any purpose without compensation, but imposes no
restriction like GPL regarding publication of the amended source.
That third model is often criticized by the GPL fans (because the
amended source is not available) and by the traditional model fans
(because there is no compensation to the originator).  On the other
hand, it is happily adopted by traditional businesses in the case of
very useful bodies of code, such as Apache.

I believe the third method (known for years as Freeware) may have
particular appeal to some Ada zealots, particularly if they have some
other source of income from their "real job".  Freeware gives no
compensation to the originator.  Freeware gives no guaranteed that
the amended source will be made generally available.  But companies
that would adapt Freeware, and would not (for whatever reason) want
to create GPL modifications, perform one goal of many zealots when
they accept Ada Freeware -- they start using Ada.

If instead they decide to transliterate Ada Freeware into some other
language (and the Ada Freeware is well written), they get a example
of how Ada can do much better.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Florian Weimer]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

> There is a third model, where the originator allows others to use
> the software for any purpose without compensation, but imposes no
> restriction like GPL regarding publication of the amended source.
> That third model is often criticized by the GPL fans (because the
> amended source is not available) and by the traditional model fans
> (because there is no compensation to the originator).  On the other
> hand, it is happily adopted by traditional businesses in the case of
> very useful bodies of code, such as Apache.
> 
> I believe the third method (known for years as Freeware)

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01) [foldoc]:

  freeware
  
     <legal> {Software}, often written by enthusiasts and
     distributed at no charge by users' groups, or via {electronic
     mail}, local {bulletin board}s, {Usenet}, or other electronic
     media.
  
     At one time, "freeware" was a trademark of {Andrew
     Fluegelman}, the author of the well-known {MS-DOS}
     communications program {PC-TALK III}.  It wasn't enforced
     after his mysterious disappearance and presumed death in 1984.
  
     "Freeware" should not be confused with "{free software}"
     (roughly, software with unrestricted redistribution) or
     "{shareware}" (software distributed without charge for which
     users can pay voluntarily).

Freeware usually combines disadvantages of the proprietary and free
software development model: there's no source code, and there's no one
to blame for defects.  Freeware is usually not non-copylefted free
software.

Of course, if you want most widespread use of Ada source code, you
should release it under a non-copyleft license (or a copyleft license
with a loophole, like the GNAT-modified GPL).  But if your main
interest lies in writing free software and supporting the free
software movement, copylefting your code is sometimes preferable.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> Of course, if you want most widespread use of Ada source code, you
> should release it under a non-copyleft license (or a copyleft license
> with a loophole, like the GNAT-modified GPL).  But if your main
> interest lies in writing free software and supporting the free
> software movement, copylefting your code is sometimes preferable.

The first one was my point -- those whose interest is more
in encouraging use of Ada than in encouraging the use of GPL
should remember the Freeware route.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<+uc0vOZmzK9b@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> In article <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
 
> The first one was my point -- those whose interest is more
> in encouraging use of Ada than in encouraging the use of GPL
> should remember the Freeware route.

I don't see how releasing free unsupported binaries (most typically
freeware does not come with sources) can help Ada (or anything else
for that matter).

On the other hand, the growing body of Free Software in Ada, most
particularly GNOME related stuff, starting with GtkAda, and GVD,
definitely do promote knowledge and use of Ada. We expect GVD to
be distributed widely as the preferred GDB visual interface for
GNOME. Interestingly the developers of GNOME were not at all
concerned with the idea of having Ada components as part of GNOME
(the only concern was that the Ada be compilable with GNAT, which
is of course the case).

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<+uc0vOZmzK9b@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> In article <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
 
> The first one was my point -- those whose interest is more
> in encouraging use of Ada than in encouraging the use of GPL
> should remember the Freeware route.


You are creating a choice that does not exist. The point of using
the GPL is to ensure that the software remains accessible and
redistributable in source form. Given that it is this accessibility
that allows people to appreciate the effectiveness of Ada, the use
of the GPL is certainly not for its own sake, but precisely because
many of us see this as the best way of encouraging the use of Ada.

Take two possible scenarios ...

1. You write something in Ada, and distribute the resulting binary
as freeware (as previously noted in this thread, freeware typically
refers to binaries distributed free). What possible value can this
have in promoting Ada? None as far as I can see.

2. You write something in Ada, and put in the public domain (it may
just possibly be the case that Larry really meant this when he used
the word freeware), and distribute the sources. Microsoft now takes
the software, translates it into C, and puts it into Windows XP++.
Again how does that help Ada? Not much!

The point of using the GPL is precisely to ensure that the Ada sources
remain available and accessible, and this seems the best way to ensure
that as many people as possible are exposed to the effective use of
Ada.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[tmoran]

>I believe the third method (known for years as Freeware) may have
>particular appeal to some Ada zealots, particularly if they have some
>...
>If instead they decide to transliterate Ada Freeware into some other
>language (and the Ada Freeware is well written), they get a example
  Back in the days of BBSes, BIX, and Compuserve, many of us posted
programs, including source, without restrictions.  Of all my postings,
just once did someone transliterate from the Ada to C and not reference
the original.  A little e-mail urging and he added the reference back to
the original Ada version.  Perhaps others have many horror stories, but
I've never heard them.  Gee, maybe Windows XP has at its core a
transliteration of one of my Ada postings ... but I doubt it.  ;)

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5ee5b646.0107291403.1bfdd147@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<+uc0vOZmzK9b@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
>> In article <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>  
>> The first one was my point -- those whose interest is more
>> in encouraging use of Ada than in encouraging the use of GPL
>> should remember the Freeware route.
> 
> I don't see how releasing free unsupported binaries (most typically
> freeware does not come with sources) can help Ada (or anything else
> for that matter).

In the VMS world one rarely encounters Freeware without source.
Of the two discs full shipped with the operating system, I think
the Bliss compiler may be the only one without source.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5ee5b646.0107291409.6538ad64@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<+uc0vOZmzK9b@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
>> In article <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
>  
>> The first one was my point -- those whose interest is more
>> in encouraging use of Ada than in encouraging the use of GPL
>> should remember the Freeware route.
> 
> 
> You are creating a choice that does not exist. The point of using
> the GPL is to ensure that the software remains accessible and
> redistributable in source form. Given that it is this accessibility
> that allows people to appreciate the effectiveness of Ada, the use
> of the GPL is certainly not for its own sake, but precisely because
> many of us see this as the best way of encouraging the use of Ada.

Given that some companies want something that does not have the GPL
restrictions, Freeware is a mechanism that can expose them to Ada.

> 2. You write something in Ada, and put in the public domain (it may
> just possibly be the case that Larry really meant this when he used
> the word freeware), and distribute the sources. Microsoft now takes
> the software, translates it into C, and puts it into Windows XP++.
> Again how does that help Ada? Not much!

It slows down Microsoft :-)

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <zs297.12260$Kd7.7645921@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, tmoran@acm.org writes:
>>I believe the third method (known for years as Freeware) may have
>>particular appeal to some Ada zealots, particularly if they have some
>>...
>>If instead they decide to transliterate Ada Freeware into some other
>>language (and the Ada Freeware is well written), they get a example
>   Back in the days of BBSes, BIX, and Compuserve, many of us posted
> programs, including source, without restrictions.  Of all my postings,
> just once did someone transliterate from the Ada to C and not reference
> the original.  A little e-mail urging and he added the reference back to
> the original Ada version.  Perhaps others have many horror stories, but
> I've never heard them.  Gee, maybe Windows XP has at its core a
> transliteration of one of my Ada postings ... but I doubt it.  ;)

In the case of Freeware perhaps the best reason for transliteration
would be to serve those who do not have a compiler for language X.
That need would seem to have gone away with the current trend to
offer a free version of many Ada compilers.

If some are determined to transliterate, it might be a good
experience for those non-Ada people to struggle with the issue
of "how can I do that in C ?".

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Ted Dennison]

In article <5ee5b646.0107291409.6538ad64@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
says...
>Take two possible scenarios ...
>
>1. You write something in Ada, and distribute the resulting binary
>as freeware (as previously noted in this thread, freeware typically
>refers to binaries distributed free). What possible value can this
>have in promoting Ada? None as far as I can see.

There might be some small value if you let it be known that it was written in
Ada. I find a shocking amount of people out there with rather bizzare ideas of
what can't be done using Ada. Hopefully widespread use of Ada software like GVD
will slowly reduce the ignorance and prejudice. 

But I still have to agree that its worlds better to provide sources for users to
actually play with. Most self-taught programmers started by tinkering with
existing code. This is also a good way to get experienced programmers (who may
need to tweek the code somewhat) exposed to Ada. The more Ada sources we make
available, the more new Ada programmers we will see. Hopefully in time some of
them will contribute back too. We really need to get some kind of snowball
effect going, and this is the best way I can see to do it. 

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Marin David Condic]

To a large extent, this is provided under the Ada Developers Cooperative
License. The source is available. Using it does not mean you have to release
your adaptations. There is no charge to use the software in most cases. the
only departure is that it reserves rights in the event that the software is
used in a product for resale. (Of course, as the author, you can always give
up that right - in effect saying you want a royalty of $0.00) It seems you
get *most* of what "Freeware" would entail - maybe in some ways more - but
allowing for the possibility of some remuneration in the event of commercial
success.

It seems to me that there isn't anything particularly "sinful" about wanting
to make a few $$$ off of released software if someone wants to use the
software in some commercial product. The ADCL is a lot less restrictive than
the GPL in the sense of enabling use by a wide variety of people - it just
reserves some financial rights in some rather limited cases.

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/


"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:my6BKStAaXFs@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> Some advocate using GPL licensing for software because it makes it
> more available to others, regardless of vendor changes of heart.
> In many cases they believe a revolution in the nature of software
> licensing and distribution is appropriate.
>
> Some advocate using traditional licensing because it better fits
> the general economic model for other goods (aside from recipes :-).
> In many cases they feel it will be better accepted by the existing
> business establishment.
>
> There is a third model, where the originator allows others to use
> the software for any purpose without compensation, but imposes no
> restriction like GPL regarding publication of the amended source.
> That third model is often criticized by the GPL fans (because the
> amended source is not available) and by the traditional model fans
> (because there is no compensation to the originator).  On the other
> hand, it is happily adopted by traditional businesses in the case of
> very useful bodies of code, such as Apache.
>
> I believe the third method (known for years as Freeware) may have
> particular appeal to some Ada zealots, particularly if they have some
> other source of income from their "real job".  Freeware gives no
> compensation to the originator.  Freeware gives no guaranteed that
> the amended source will be made generally available.  But companies
> that would adapt Freeware, and would not (for whatever reason) want
> to create GPL modifications, perform one goal of many zealots when
> they accept Ada Freeware -- they start using Ada.
>
> If instead they decide to transliterate Ada Freeware into some other
> language (and the Ada Freeware is well written), they get a example
> of how Ada can do much better.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <e4e97.11449$ar1.33669@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> In article <5ee5b646.0107291409.6538ad64@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
> says...
>>Take two possible scenarios ...
>>
>>1. You write something in Ada, and distribute the resulting binary
>>as freeware (as previously noted in this thread, freeware typically
>>refers to binaries distributed free). What possible value can this
>>have in promoting Ada? None as far as I can see.
> 
> There might be some small value if you let it be known that it was written in
> Ada. I find a shocking amount of people out there with rather bizzare ideas of
> what can't be done using Ada. Hopefully widespread use of Ada software like GVD
> will slowly reduce the ignorance and prejudice. 
> 
> But I still have to agree that its worlds better to provide sources for users to
> actually play with. Most self-taught programmers started by tinkering with
> existing code. This is also a good way to get experienced programmers (who may
> need to tweek the code somewhat) exposed to Ada. The more Ada sources we make
> available, the more new Ada programmers we will see. Hopefully in time some of
> them will contribute back too. We really need to get some kind of snowball
> effect going, and this is the best way I can see to do it. 

Certainly making source available is implicit in Freeware as I described
it.  There has been no detail about the environments in which "Freeware"
is something where you don't get source.  Certainly folks running any
sort of production data center (or even centre :-) are going to insist
on either having source or having a reputable vendor they can sue if it
all goes up in smoke.  That reputable vendor does not exist with software
labeled as "Freeware".  (Even the public version of ACT's GPLed software
comes with the stipulation that you didn't get it directly from them,
so they cannot stand behind what modifications might be in it.)

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<6jSXphU8E$xY@eisner.encompasserve.org>...

> Given that some companies want something that does not have the GPL
> restrictions, Freeware is a mechanism that can expose them to Ada.

Again, the term Freeware is just not sufficiently well defined for
anyone to be able to deduce what you are saying.

When you write software, it is automatically copyrighted. Now the
issue is what license if any will you give, to whom, and what usages
will it allow.

Freeware is not a license, it is just a general term that people use
for what they can get for free.

Now if you are saying that some companies don't like the GPL because
it restricts what they can do, that of course is true, it is not as
restrictive as, say, the Microsoft license (which is why the MS
complaints are a bit peculiar), but it is definitely restrictive.

If you prefer to use a non-restrictive license, e.g. the BSD license,
or you want to completely renounce the copyright and place the work
in the public domain that is perfectly reasonable. The author of any
software, more accurately the copyright holder, since these are not
the same in the case of work-for-hire, is of course free to determine
what licensing conditions to use.

But please don't muddy your point by using the amorphous term Freeware
which says nothing about licensing conditions (some Freeware is indeed
VERY restrictively licensed, in terms of what use it can be put to,
using a much MORE restrictive license than the GPL, and indeed
sufficiently restrictive so that even if the source is provided, the
program does not begin to meet the definitions of Open Source *or* of
Free Software (the MS approach to "open" source is in this category).

If what you want is to encourage the use of a particular license, then
say so, and say what exactly you are encouraging!

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Ted Dennison]

In article <4ajzJ$TMn9o+@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen says...
>
>Certainly making source available is implicit in Freeware as I described
>it.  There has been no detail about the environments in which "Freeware"

Ahh, that's different then. Most of the "freeware" stuff I might download for my
PC from places like happypuppy.com does *not* come with sources, and that is the
domain in which I tend to see the term used most. It could be that you are
thinking more along the lines of BSD-style licensing. If that's the case, note
that the BSD license actually qualifies as Free Software. The GNU project refers
to it as a "permissive non-copyleft free software license". 

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5ee5b646.0107301233.66e4c147@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<6jSXphU8E$xY@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> 
>> Given that some companies want something that does not have the GPL
>> restrictions, Freeware is a mechanism that can expose them to Ada.
> 
> Again, the term Freeware is just not sufficiently well defined for
> anyone to be able to deduce what you are saying.

Certainly not to those, like you, who have been following this thread :-).

> Now if you are saying that some companies don't like the GPL because
> it restricts what they can do, that of course is true, it is not as
> restrictive as, say, the Microsoft license (which is why the MS
> complaints are a bit peculiar), but it is definitely restrictive.

And some people don't like Ada because it has been used by the
US government.  No matter what restriction, or lack of restriction,
you put on something, someone will object.  No doubt some object
to non-GPL software because it does not further the cause of GPL.

> If what you want is to encourage the use of a particular license, then
> say so, and say what exactly you are encouraging!

I am suggesting there is a place for some (useful) software with no
restrictions at all.  Since there is also a place for software with
the GPL restrictions, one might think there is a place for others
in between (e.g., a requirement for giving credit).

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <zmk97.11948$ar1.37451@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> In article <4ajzJ$TMn9o+@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen says...
>>
>>Certainly making source available is implicit in Freeware as I described
>>it.  There has been no detail about the environments in which "Freeware"
> 
> Ahh, that's different then. Most of the "freeware" stuff I might download for my
> PC from places like happypuppy.com does *not* come with sources, and that is the
> domain in which I tend to see the term used most.

Obviously our vantage points differ.  I quote from a recent post in
the VMS newsgroup where the meaning of "The Freeware" is considered
to be known by all.  There may be licensing restrictions on some
elements (probably due to the advent of GCC), but very little on
those CD-ROMs comes without source.  The citation is for an FTP
mirror of the discs from two years ago.

Larry Kilgallen

> In article <9jtci1$abo8@imsp212.netvigator.com>, "Kenneth" <best@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Is there any tools for benchmarking the disk performance in VMS 7.2-1?
> > 
> 
> 	Yes.  Check the freeware... it is called TESTDEV.  I dumped
> 	a small .com file out here to act as a driver.
> 
> http://www.openvms.compaq.com/freeware/FREEWARE40/TESTDEV/SRC/
> 
> 				Rob

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<4ajzJ$TMn9o+@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> In article <e4e97.11449$ar1.33669@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> Certainly making source available is implicit in Freeware as I 
> described it. 

Well like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice, you can make words mean anything
you want, but you will confuse the issue if you use definitions
different from those generally accepted. Once again, Freeware is
usually used to describe any software which can be obtained at
no charge. A very large amount of this software, the majority in
some environments, is distributed without sources (e.g. many of
the freeware games around, TE/2, and many others). That's why we
don't like people to confuse Free Software (where the availability
of source is key) with Freeware (where source is frequently not
available).

Since source availability is key for you, why not abandon your
confusing insistence on the word freeware, and instead concentrate
on what licenses you would like to see. Most likely these will be
Free Software licenses (not necessarily the GPL, remember that many
licenses qualify as Free Software, including BSD, the Ada community
license, the GMGPL, and public domain).

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in message news:<9k3ui1$ql1$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...

> To a large extent, this is provided under the Ada Developers 
> Cooperative License. 

Perhaps, but that's a MUCH more restrictive license than the GPL.
Certainly any company that does not like the GPL is going to like
that even less.

> The ADCL is a lot less restrictive than the GPL in the sense of 
> enabling use by a wide variety of people - it just
> reserves some financial rights in some rather limited cases.

Well it's a matter of point of view, from my point of view restricting
redistribution rights in any manner is a very significant restriction,
and the ADCL qualifies neither as Open Source, nor as Free Software
under the usual definitions (see the relevant web sites for
definitions of these terms).

But ultimately the real point here is that copyright holders can
decide their own licensing conditions, I doubt any discussion, least
of all
among the habituees of CLA, is going to have epsilon effect on the
license that people choose to use for the software they create.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:<zmk97.11948$ar1.37451@www.newsranger.com>...
> If that's the case, note
> that the BSD license actually qualifies as Free Software. The GNU 
> project refers to it as a "permissive non-copyleft free software 
> license". 


Well yes, of *course* the BSD is Free Software, anything *less*
restrictive than the GPL of course qualifies as Free Software. I
am surprised that anyone would think otherwise. Perhaps people
make the mistake of thinking Free Software = GPL, but that's quite
wrong, and even Microsoft does not make that mistake :-)

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<tch0yFB+db$i@eisner.encompasserve.org>...

> Obviously our vantage points differ.  I quote from a recent post in
> the VMS newsgroup where the meaning of "The Freeware" is considered
> to be known by all.

No, you're getting confused here "The Freeware" is referring to the
particular set of software concerned, it is not a definition of
Freeware. That explains the confusion, but from now on, please
concentrate on recommending what licensing you would like to see
(not that I think it will affect anyone much, but at least we would
know what you were trying to say). For example, is a restrictive
license like the ADCL acceptable from your point of view, or do you
want to at least conform to the definition of Open Source.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5ee5b646.0107301939.20b7df1e@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<tch0yFB+db$i@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> 
>> Obviously our vantage points differ.  I quote from a recent post in
>> the VMS newsgroup where the meaning of "The Freeware" is considered
>> to be known by all.
> 
> No, you're getting confused here "The Freeware" is referring to the
> particular set of software concerned, it is not a definition of
> Freeware.

"The Freeware" is just that person's informal way of referring to a
known set of discs.  Others might call them "the freeware disks
that come with VMS".  They call them that because they contain
freeware -- unsupported stuff which with very few exceptions
includes source.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Marin David Condic]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0107301935.721c1842@posting.google.com...
> "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in
message news:<9k3ui1$ql1$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
>
> > To a large extent, this is provided under the Ada Developers
> > Cooperative License.
>
> Perhaps, but that's a MUCH more restrictive license than the GPL.
> Certainly any company that does not like the GPL is going to like
> that even less.
>
Well, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on newsgroups, but...

My understanding of the ADCL was that one of the key features was the lack
of "Infection" that happens under the GPL. You can use the source, modify
it, compile it into your systems, etc. and you are under no obligation to
open up your part of the contribution if you don't feel like it. That is at
least one sense in which the ADCL is less restrictive.

I'll grant you that reserving some sort of financial rights for the
copyright holder is definitely more restrictive than the GPL. But one can
think about it in this light: I can "pay" by paying financially for the
software I get from someone else and resell or I can "pay" by having to turn
my software loose because I included someone else's software in with it.
Either way, you're giving up something of intrinsic value in order to
utilize the source code of another. Which is more "restrictive"? Like
"value" it is in the eye of the beholder.

Which way is better? I don't know. I suspect that each has its advantages
and disadvantages in various settings. I do know that some companies have
shied away from the GPL because they fear having to make their sources open
in order to utilize GPLed code. I also know that companies routinely pay
fees of one sort or another in order to utilize someone else's software in
their end product. One size is not going to fit all.


> > The ADCL is a lot less restrictive than the GPL in the sense of
> > enabling use by a wide variety of people - it just
> > reserves some financial rights in some rather limited cases.
>
> Well it's a matter of point of view, from my point of view restricting
> redistribution rights in any manner is a very significant restriction,
> and the ADCL qualifies neither as Open Source, nor as Free Software
> under the usual definitions (see the relevant web sites for
> definitions of these terms).
>
How it qualifies by some definition of "Open Source" or "Free Software" I do
not know since I don't think either of those terms comes with a single,
patented definition. :-) Yes, there is a kind of common usage and maybe by
that common usage ADCL doesn't qualify. So what? The question ought to be
"Can I use this software in a manner that helps me move my mission forward?"
Maybe in a lot of cases ADCL does that.

You definitely have more experience in the legal aspects of this than I do,
so I'm perfectly willing to bow to your superior knowledge on this subject.
My understanding of the ADCL (which, BTW, does not seem to have a complete
form at this stage and also lacks the infrastructure necessary to make it
work) is that the intent is to let you freely copy and utilize Ada source
code. AFAIK, there is nothing in it to stop you from downloading a copy of
the source, compiling it in your environment, modifying it in any way you
like, including it as part of your own work or giving copies of it to your
friends and associates. The only restriction I see in it (and I'll admit I
may be wrong) is that if you include it in some work that you sell for $$$,
you have to give some of those $$$ to the copyright holder(s). By way of an
anti-restriction, you get the benefit that if you use ADCL software in your
product, you are in no way forced to also make your software ADCL or give
the source to anyone unless you just plain feel like it.

That's a feature of the GPL that I find offensive - attempting to force me
into doing something I may not find in my best interest in order to use some
software someone else wrote. Its insidious because at stage 1 of development
I may not see it as a problem but at stage N of development I may discover I
have something I don't want to make "Open Source" for all kinds of good
reasons - only now its too late because I'm already "infected".

Granted, the copyright holders have every right to do anything they like,
but it leaves it to me to say "I'd rather buy the right to use some
subsystem and not have anybody thus claiming some kind of easement into *my*
property than use it free of charge and thus have the GPL police looking
into what is my own personal business." Its the camel getting its nose under
the tent flap - use of one GPLed subroutine gives access to my million SLOC
labor. Hmmmmm.....

> But ultimately the real point here is that copyright holders can
> decide their own licensing conditions, I doubt any discussion, least
> of all
> among the habituees of CLA, is going to have epsilon effect on the
> license that people choose to use for the software they create.

Absolutely and Yeah Verily! A copyright holder can do anything he likes with
his copyright. And given the variety of circumstances in which copyrights
exist I don't think it is right to characterize various levels of
restriction as "good" or "evil". (Sometimes I get the feeling that advocates
of GPL or other less restrictive licenses regard any sort of restriction on
use of someone else's software as "evil" - sort of "I want it free and if
you won't give me the fruits of your labor free, then you are an evil
person!")

Most people don't object to the idea that a book publisher or a movie
producer or a recording artist has a right to make a buck from his own work
and that to copy that work without permission and/or some form of
remuneration is a kind of "theft". Why does it get regarded as a different
matter when it comes to computer software?

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/

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Ted Dennison]

In article <tch0yFB+db$i@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen says...
>
>Obviously our vantage points differ.  I quote from a recent post in
>the VMS newsgroup where the meaning of "The Freeware" is considered
>to be known by all.  There may be licensing restrictions on some
>elements (probably due to the advent of GCC), but very little on
>those CD-ROMs comes without source.  The citation is for an FTP
>mirror of the discs from two years ago.

Ahhh. Ok. It may have been clearer if you had stated this up-front to us who
don't live in the VMS world.

Just to further clarify, do you get the right to modify and redistribute the
sources with this "VMS Freeware"? In the larger world you would generally not
have either right with Freeware (as the sources aren't given to you in the first
place).

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Ted Dennison]

In article <5PA97.12687$ar1.39620@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison says...
>Just to further clarify, do you get the right to modify and redistribute the
>sources with this "VMS Freeware"? In the larger world you would generally not
>have either right with Freeware (as the sources aren't given to you in the first

To partially answer my own question, the example Larry quoted:
>> http://www.openvms.compaq.com/freeware/FREEWARE40/TESTDEV/SRC/

If you go up a directory and look at the readme file, it explicitly gives
permission for distributing *verbatim* copies at no charge. But reserves all
other rights. The author probably intended to also allow the rights of running
it and of modification (although he did not do so). But it is certianly not
permitted to modify it and distribute the result, and that seems the clear
intent. 

That's probably fine for the small utility which this is. But for any large
program that must change to thrive, such a provision would fatally tie it to the
interest and lifetime of the original author. You have only to look at the state
of the c.l.a. FAQ at AdaHome, which has very similar license terms, to see what
that would mean in practice.

I'm being a bit unfair here, as this is but a single example. But if you mean
"Freeware" to include terms such as these, I would submit that your argument
would be better served by something at least a *little* more free. Again, I
think you *should* be shooting for (if you weren't already), "permissively
licensed" Free Software.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5PA97.12687$ar1.39620@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> In article <tch0yFB+db$i@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen says...
>>
>>Obviously our vantage points differ.  I quote from a recent post in
>>the VMS newsgroup where the meaning of "The Freeware" is considered
>>to be known by all.  There may be licensing restrictions on some
>>elements (probably due to the advent of GCC), but very little on
>>those CD-ROMs comes without source.  The citation is for an FTP
>>mirror of the discs from two years ago.
> 
> Ahhh. Ok. It may have been clearer if you had stated this up-front to us who
> don't live in the VMS world.
> 
> Just to further clarify, do you get the right to modify and redistribute the
> sources with this "VMS Freeware"? In the larger world you would generally not
> have either right with Freeware (as the sources aren't given to you in the first
> place).

Originally you could do anything you wanted (subject to export control
and similar laws).  These days they have added some wording that says
"check the individual package description", allowing them to include
GCC.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <86B97.12723$ar1.39955@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> I'm being a bit unfair here, as this is but a single example. But if you mean
> "Freeware" to include terms such as these, I would submit that your argument
> would be better served by something at least a *little* more free. Again, I
> think you *should* be shooting for (if you weren't already), "permissively
> licensed" Free Software.

Yes, that sounds a bit restrictive.  As I said, the emergence of
GPL (and desireable software using it) caused them to change the
rules to allow submitters to set their own boundaries.

The only piece of this I have worked with lately has much looser
rules, something like "don't erase my copyright from the source".
Someone asked in USENET why that item didn't do XYZ.  I mentioned
that I found it easy to adapt to make it do XYZ, and I later got
email from the author asking if he could get my changes to put
into the master copy he keeps.

Neither of us engaged a lawyer, although we certainly do have a formal
agreement when my company buys software from his company.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Dale Pontius]

In article <my6BKStAaXFs@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
        Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
...
> There is a third model, where the originator allows others to use
> the software for any purpose without compensation, but imposes no
> restriction like GPL regarding publication of the amended source.
...

Sounds to me as if you're talking about the BSD license.

In LinuxLand, GPL vs BSD flamewars used to abound. These days, most
people just yawn if one tries to start up.

Dale Pontius
NOT speaking for IBM

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert Dewar]

pontius@btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius) wrote in message news:<9kent0$ivo$2@news.btv.ibm.com>...
> In article <my6BKStAaXFs@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>         Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> ...
> > There is a third model, where the originator allows others to use
> > the software for any purpose without compensation, but imposes no
> > restriction like GPL regarding publication of the amended source.
> ...
> 
> Sounds to me as if you're talking about the BSD license.
> 
> In LinuxLand, GPL vs BSD flamewars used to abound. These days, most
> people just yawn if one tries to start up.

But this issue has been hotted up recently by Microsoft and Wind River
who have strongly favored the BSD license over the GPL, partly
because they want to use Free Software developed by others in their
own proprietary products.

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Ted Dennison]

In article <5ee5b646.0108031815.599ecf37@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
says...
>
>But this issue has been hotted up recently by Microsoft and Wind River
>who have strongly favored the BSD license over the GPL, partly
>because they want to use Free Software developed by others in their
>own proprietary products.

That's very interesting considering that, as near as I can tell, Wind River's
entire business is built upon a foundation GPL'ed software. The version of
Tornado I have uses both gcc and a customized gnu make.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Dale Pontius]

In article <YXxb7.351$NJ6.884@www.newsranger.com>,
        Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> In article <5ee5b646.0108031815.599ecf37@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
> says...
>>
>>But this issue has been hotted up recently by Microsoft and Wind River
>>who have strongly favored the BSD license over the GPL, partly
>>because they want to use Free Software developed by others in their
>>own proprietary products.
>
> That's very interesting considering that, as near as I can tell, Wind River's
> entire business is built upon a foundation GPL'ed software. The version of
> Tornado I have uses both gcc and a customized gnu make.
>
There's an interesting perspective one can take with respect to the
GPL, from a corporate perspective:

First off, nobody is an island, even corporations. Even if you buy a
lot of software, and are not a software company yourself, chances are
you still have a lot of custom software running around in-house. Even
more, SOME of this in-house software may be of interest to others,
and may help sell whatever you make as your core product/service.

THIS is the stuff that it makes sense to put under GPL. You don't
want to become responsible for it in the same way that you are for
for-sale products, yet you'd like to see it out there. At the worst,
it is a complete no-op to your bottom line. Even better, it may help
sell products that are on your bottom line. Better yet, it may also
devalue a competitor's product line by making free competition for
their for-sale product, (This is more likely if you're a niche
player and they are more diversified.) leaving you slightly stronger
in the areas where you are head-to-head.

Dale Pontius
NOT speaking for IBM

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Preben Randhol]

In article <9me5be$q2k$1@news.btv.ibm.com>, Dale Pontius wrote:

> Better yet, it may also devalue a competitor's product line by making
> free competition for their for-sale product, (This is more likely if
> you're a niche player and they are more diversified.) leaving you
> slightly stronger in the areas where you are head-to-head.

Which in my opinion is the strategy Sun is going after with Open Office.
I mean to break the M$ Office monopoly.

Preben Randhol
-- 
with Ada, Programming_Is_Safer;
use Ada;

RE: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.]

From: Bob Leif
To: Preben Randhol et al.
Unfortunately, Sun has one gross deficiency, at least concerning their
spreadsheet; they do not understand that software engineering needs to be
applied to a spreadsheet. The only one that was worth anything was Lotus'
Improve. Columns and rows must have unique, human understandable names. This
permits formulas to be understood by mere mortals, the customers. At least,
Microsoft has started to port its products to XML.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Preben Randhol
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:35 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: In praise of Ada Freeware


In article <9me5be$q2k$1@news.btv.ibm.com>, Dale Pontius wrote:

> Better yet, it may also devalue a competitor's product line by making
> free competition for their for-sale product, (This is more likely if
> you're a niche player and they are more diversified.) leaving you
> slightly stronger in the areas where you are head-to-head.

Which in my opinion is the strategy Sun is going after with Open Office.
I mean to break the M$ Office monopoly.

Preben Randhol
--
with Ada, Programming_Is_Safer;
use Ada;

Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Preben Randhol]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:34:52 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol wrote:
> In article <9me5be$q2k$1@news.btv.ibm.com>, Dale Pontius wrote:
> 
>> Better yet, it may also devalue a competitor's product line by making
>> free competition for their for-sale product, (This is more likely if
>> you're a niche player and they are more diversified.) leaving you
>> slightly stronger in the areas where you are head-to-head.
> 
> Which in my opinion is the strategy Sun is going after with Open Office.
> I mean to break the M$ Office monopoly.

And here is how Microsoft is doing it to keep the monopoly:

http://www.smh.com.au/icon/0108/28/news1000.html

Preben Randhol
-- 
with Ada, Programming_Is_Safer;
use Ada;