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: 103376,351835e570c46e8b,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-18 19:47:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!nntp.infostrada.it!news.mailgate.org!newsreader.mailgate.org!not-for-mail From: "John Stoneham" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Conflicting statements about GPS? Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:46:41 -0500 Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG Sender: obijohn63@yahoo.com Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe-24-174-227-185.gt.rr.com X-Trace: newsreader.mailgate.org 1034995667 13800 24.174.227.185 (19 Oct 2002 02:47:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@mailgate.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 02:47:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29934 Date: 2002-10-18T21:46:41-05:00 List-Id: I am, surely like most on this ng who use gnat, eagerly awaiting the any-week-now release of GPS. However, after combing through what I could find as "official" statements about it (mainly from Robert Dewar), I have become concerned. One statement clearly emphasised that GPS was "Free Software", which would benefit from the input of many users, and this raised my hopes. But the only statements regarding it's release that I could find referred to those using Gnat Pro, which is not free. Maybe I'm mistaken about the "Free Software" reference, but I don't believe it can be properly labled as such if it is only offered "free" to paying customers. Nor do I think it proper to call it "Free Software" if it is only intended to be offered for free after a major upgrade to the paying customers, and the "free" part is the old version made freely available after a year or more. But maybe that's just me. And maybe I'm wrong about what the process is going to be, but there is nothing to tell me otherwise so far. So Mr. Dewar, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering. -- John Stoneham (to email, reverse the domain)