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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,101730fbd6919745 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-08 10:13:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail From: Ingo Marks Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:10:46 +0200 Organization: T-Online Message-ID: References: <4519e058.0204080645.32b63ee1@posting.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1018285818 00 4070 tlrMTmWS7YCmq 020408 17:10:18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com X-Sender: 340020534592-0001@t-dialin.net User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22232 Date: 2002-04-08T19:10:46+02:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > The biggest problem I see with an Ada .NET is that the .NET licensing > was hand-crafted to be anti-GPL, so it effectively prohibits anyone > from using Gnat to implement it. That means only a company with an > existing proprietary Ada compiler is going to be able to do the job. Are you sure? AFAIK you may not produce GPL-clones of .NET-functionality but it should be allowed to produce .NET-applications with compilers and languages whatever you like. GPL states that if you modify GPL sources then you have to publish your modifications. But it doesn't force you to publish your source if you, for example, write a new Office from scratch and compile it with gcc. Of course, you would be forced to publish your Office code if you would take a small piece of some GPL code and enhance it to your final Office. Ingo