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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a02:9a03:: with SMTP id b3mr5096083jal.35.1559109244481; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:54:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7995:: with SMTP id h21mr25941otm.329.1559109244260; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!i64no226064iti.0!news-out.google.com!p73ni100itp.0!nntp.google.com!c92no228272itd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 22:54:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1f5a3876-a27a-439a-bcf8-d24d96e437a4@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.84.79; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.84.79 References: <5c6d8e37-b737-4a8b-b601-0d0b4c10756b@googlegroups.com> <29e20858-6e53-4e52-a5e0-6ff7cb0d8f74@googlegroups.com> <1f5a3876-a27a-439a-bcf8-d24d96e437a4@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Needed - Ada 2012 Compiler. From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 05:54:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56395 Date: 2019-05-28T22:54:03-07:00 List-Id: > > Wrong. You can write your program (or a > > library) and sell it in the form of source code > > with whatever license you wish >=20 > Certainly absolutely no one does that regarding software that is strictly= GPLv3 without the Runtime Library Exception! Wrong. But let's go back a little to better understand the workflow. 1. You write some code. It can be a standalone app or a library. 2. You can put whatever license you wish on your source code. 3. You can deliver it (the source code!) to your users with that license. Finished. ... OK, so you think it might be a good idea to verify this code a little bit b= efore selling it to your customers - you know, test it or at least check wh= ether it compiles at all. So you add an additional points to the scheme abo= ve: 1a. You compile your code with whatever compiler you have. 1b. You run your tests or perform whatever other verification activities to= make sure that your product has an expected quality level. These two points have no impact on points 2. and 3. above. I will agree that this scheme is not satisfactory for the case of applicati= ons distributed via App Stores, or for users who don't want to be involved = in technical activities like compiling something on their own - this is und= erstandable, and in such cases a turn-key product needs to be delivered. Bu= t it is a very satisfactory scheme for the case of libraries, which become = included in this kind of workflow on the user side anyway. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com