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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,2c7b0b777188b7c4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.germany.com!news.nask.pl!news.nask.org.pl!newsfeed.atman.pl!not-for-mail From: Szymon Guz Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:35:32 +0200 Organization: ATMAN Message-ID: References: <1128499462.850353.146890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87ek6zom2h.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87ek697ga5.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: staticline10736.toya.net.pl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: node1.news.atman.pl 1130258100 69732 85.89.162.229 (25 Oct 2005 16:35:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@atman.pl NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:35:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: pl, en-us, en In-Reply-To: <87ek697ga5.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0543-1, 2005-10-25), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5927 Date: 2005-10-25T18:35:32+02:00 List-Id: Samuel Tardieu napisa=B3(a): >>>>>>"Jeff" =3D=3D Jeff Creem writes: >=20 >=20 > Jeff> No. Actually, what it shows is that a large number of developers > Jeff> are not lawyers and don't understand software licensing so when > Jeff> licensing terms are brought to the forefront, they get confused > Jeff> and upset. >=20 > It also shows that AdaCore changed their mind and strategy > completely. Here is an excerpt of a comp.lang.ada post from Robert > Dewar (6 May 1999): >=20 > "In fact this is far from a theoretical situation, it is quite fine > legally for someone to distribute GPL'ed software for price $x, > possibly $0, and charge you a bundle for a separate license that > allows you to use the same software in a proprietary context. Indeed > it is my understanding (and I apologize in advance if this is an > incorrect understanding) that Cygwin is distributed under EXACTLY > this split model. > =20 > One may argue over whether such a distribution model is a good idea > (at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such dual > licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff), > but it is absolutely 100% consistent with the GPL. Indeed I have > heard people argue that it is appropriate, because it gives full > access to those writing free software, and penalizes those writing > proprietary software, which to some people seems an appropriate > situation :-)" >=20 > Note the "at ACT we prefer a completely clean situation with no such du= al > licensing, which is why we use the modified GPL for runtime stuff". >=20 > Well, it looks like the "clean situation" is not the preferred one > anymore. >=20 > Sam Another problem can be the price that ACT wants for GNAT. About a year=20 ago I wrote a mail to ACT and asked about the price. The answer was that = I cannot buy licence for one seat, I can buy for at least 5 seats. They=20 offered me all others products (for about 20% of their normal price) and = GNAT Pro for 5 seats just for about 30 000 euros. For many companies=20 this is too much as they can have e.g. Delphi|Builder professional for=20 1000 euros with much more components. szymon guz