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: 103376,775f2cb8854e78a2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-03 12:00:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!news.belwue.de!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!nntp01.fccn.pt!nntp02.fccn.pt!zap!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada_Arrays Project Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:56:03 +0000 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Message-ID: References: <17eddf9f.0311270408.53a25eb1@posting.google.com> <17eddf9f.0311271236.2a1ded9f@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: vintage.liacc.up.pt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.up.pt 1070034963 28795 193.137.36.167 (28 Nov 2003 15:56:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.up.pt NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Nov 2003 15:56:03 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030807 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3112 Date: 2003-11-28T15:56:03+00:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: > On 2003-11-27, M?rio Amado Alves 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.