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-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> From: M E Leypold Date: 28 Jun 2006 15:04:54 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.226.55 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151499518 88.72.226.55 (28 Jun 2006 14:58:38 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5272 Date: 2006-06-28T15:04:54+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > Jeffrey Creem 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