Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com> writes:
> 
> > Hopefully someone at Greenhills is paying attention to this
> > discussion. This confusing license perhaps "exposing" a company to GPL
> > terms when the headers clearly are not GPL will make a great writeup
> > that will pretty much make it impossible to even use GNATPro within my
> > company.
> 
> I don't see this, GNATpro clearly comes with the sort of licence we
> need (GMGPL and all). Noone could use it if it didn't.

Well -- if you, as JC seemed to imply -- are working for a company
that is providing programming service to large aerospace companies and
of those some in turn seem to have a "no GPL" policy in place now, as
other posts seem to imply: You wouldn't want to explain to them the
difference between Gnat GPL and Gnat Pro. You'd like to avoid the "GPL
stink", someone put it here, the association to 

I'm not sure wether large contractors actually audit their
subcontractors development tools and process. But I wouldn't be
surprised.

> The fear of GPL infection remains, of course.

Exactly. If ACT had spoke up clearly or had clear GPL licenses for
_new_ version on their side, perhaps a short note announcing the
transition etc., they would have got flak earlier, but it could have
been sorted out. As it is, fear, uncertainty and doubt, the three
apocalyptic riders of information technology, are at large again.

You might not see it, but I take other posts as confirmation, that
other people also see potential users of Ada (be they commercial or
student or hobbyist) turned away by that. Nobody wants to learn riding
with a dead horse.

Regards  -- Markus