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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.152.8 with SMTP id uu8mr49807855pab.24.1420424917228; Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:28:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.2.8 with SMTP id 8mr228obq.36.1420424916938; Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:28:36 -0800 (PST) Path: border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!h15no36318273igd.0!news-out.google.com!h6ni16060igv.0!nntp.google.com!h15no36318270igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:28:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=73.46.72.234; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.46.72.234 References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad> <199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com> <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What is the best license to use for open source software? From: David Botton Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 02:28:37 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:191658 Date: 2015-01-04T18:28:36-08:00 List-Id: > Stop it. No, without debating if wikipedia is even definitive, my definition is supp= orted by that article. The idea that software has to be "proprietary" to be= shareware is simply not true. It is just the most common form. Just like t= he statement in the FSF article says that it "usually doesn't include sourc= e" but certainly does sometimes. GNAT GPL could be called shareware, trialware, demoware, etc. everyone is v= alid. It is what it is. A demo of tech that uses the GPL to license virus its out= put to encourage purchase of a commercial product. It is of questionable be= nefit to the company, it is harmful to the Ada community and it is not help= ful at all to the GPL community (ok, maybe for bootstrap purposes....) What is important and the only reason for beating this horse that won't die= (no offense to horses intended) is that it is imperative that as a communi= ty everyone show a consistent message that the fsf gcc/ada versions are the= primary Ada compiler and if you are so inclined that there are other great= options for those needing high end support and "critical" compilers at Ada= Core, i.e. go back to the original ACT approach, even if they want to conti= nue to "scare" or GPL run-time bully away those with out the funds for thei= r commercial product. To make sure newbie understand they are just using the "shareware" version = and that there is a real libre version that has no hidden agenda or license= virus just like all the other gcc compilers. David Botton