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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-16 11:30:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!aanews.merit.edu!msunews!not-for-mail From: "Chad R. Meiners" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment. Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:25:27 -0400 Organization: Michigan State University Message-ID: References: <3F3E1A7D.7040402@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: arctic.cse.msu.edu X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41604 Date: 2003-08-16T14:25:27-04:00 List-Id: "Preben Randhol" wrote in message news:slrnbjs7cu.2q3.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no... > Marin David Condic wrote: > > Good point. Microsoft doesn't want you to give *their* software away and > > uses licenses to do that. They get called names and accused of > > "predatory" tactics, while you're still free to use their tools to > > develop your own things and keep the rights to your own work. But the > > FSF is determined not that you don't give away their work, but that you > > must give away *your*own* work, and that is somehow or other laudable? > > That isn't "predatory"? > > This is completely wrong and borderlines FUD. Please tell me how you can > take a part of say Microsoft Studio and make an Ada Studio without > paying a hell of a lot of bucks to Microsoft for it. Then compare it to > that you use some GPL software and make your Ada Studio from that. You > don't pay money for the software you took, no you pay source code! Correct you have to pay both ways. So Marin's point is not wrong! > But that said. Most libraries that you would like to use on Linux comes > in either LGPL, GMGPL or some other license which allows the development > of closed source commercial software. So when people are saying that you > *must* release software for Linux as GPL it is blatant ignorance. No one said that. Please try to carefuly read and understand what people are writing as opposed to assuming you know what they intended.