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 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-19 08:08:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.mailgate.org!newsreader.mailgate.org!not-for-mail From: "John Stoneham" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Conflicting statements about GPS? Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:08:24 -0500 Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG Sender: obijohn63@yahoo.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe-24-174-227-185.gt.rr.com X-Trace: newsreader.mailgate.org 1035040108 31380 24.174.227.185 (19 Oct 2002 15:08:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@mailgate.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:08:28 +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:29946 Date: 2002-10-19T10:08:24-05:00 List-Id: "Preben Randhol" wrote in message news:slrnar2emk.2cj.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no... > John Stoneham wrote: > > 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. > > It is Free but not gratis (no cost) as it is supported software. I'm > only hoping that there will be a public release (gratis, not supported) > later of GPS like they do with the Gnat compiler. > > > 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. > > Yes I think so. Read on the definition of Free Software at http://www.fsf.org/ > > Preben >From www.fsf.org and the definition of Free Software: "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms." So, in order for GPS to be considered "Free Software", any user of GPS should be able to make copies available for others (freedom 2), or make improvements to the source code and redistribute that (freedom 3). If the copies given to Gnat Pro users are restricted from free distribution to others, then it is not "Free Software". Note that there is nothing in the definition of "Free Software" that prevents ACT from charging for it. They just can't restrict its distribution to only paying customers and still call it "Free Software". Probably the best example of this senario is Red Hat. They charge for their Linux OS and service, but it's freely available for download to anyone who wants it, even the most bleeding edge versions. They don't hold back and release Red Hat 7.0 to the public while selling 9.0 and restricting it's distribution. I think it is perfectly acceptable for ACT to restrict GPS to paying customers and release old versions to the public for free, but I don't think it's acceptable for ACT to call GPS "Free Software" from the very beginning if that is their plan. It is misleading and a distortion of the definition of Free Software. -- John