Re: Ada_Arrays Project

[Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> On 2003-11-27, M?rio Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:
> 
>>Nothing "wrong", it just isn't commercial. If you don't want to make
>>money then GMGPL is fine. The basic idea of commercial open source is
>>that if an (open source) component ends up being part of a lucrative
>>setup then the authors of the component receive a fair reward. 
> 
> Yes, exactly, a big fat *IF*.

Yes, exactly, and fat is good in this case: the user only owes when 
revenue is generated. Please see the discussions.

>>Before objecting please review the material indexed on the SDC site,
>>for example my essay Open Source Business Found Parasitic, Bob Leif's
>>Ada Developers Cooperative License, and the Commented Conditions of
>>Use of SDC Artifacts. And I suggest we don't discuss the general issue
>>here (it's OT). You're very welcome to do it on the SDC forum of
>>course (www.softdevelcoop.org).
 >
> Well, whatever. I wouldn't touch the library if it has some strange
> license. If you are talking about a *program* things are different, but
> a *library*...

I know some users dislike "strange" licences, but this attitude is often 
irrational. It is in this case. The definition of program vs. library is 
one of the complex issues aluded. So much so that it is a problem in 
GPL, and even on the LGPL which was done to overcome that (but strictly 
did not). Some of us have been trying to solve the problem with the 
concept of "use of a component". Again, please see the discussions. I 
won't argue here anymore unless you mark this thread OT and people don't 
complaint.