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-Thread: a07f3367d7,c92999d3d36edb6c X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252 Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: MinGW Ada compiler licence question targeting commercial applications Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <33f1587d-b3eb-4866-8121-b027743d1114@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.66.190.217 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245428137 17951 127.0.0.1 (19 Jun 2009 16:15:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:15:37 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.66.190.217; posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6542 Date: 2009-06-19T09:15:36-07:00 List-Id: On 19 juin, 17:36, sjw wrote: > As I understand it, you are prepared to provide a source code > distribution under a license which does not permit redistribution. > That's not what most people would call 'open source' Yes, but what is the most important thing with an application ? I guess as an exemple, people using software to help genealogy research do not bother the software is open source or not. He/she first see what it can do, if it is nice to use, if it is not too much expensive (yes I know a lot of people expect totally free, but a lot of useful application are not free of charge), then if the guy/girl know a bit about coding, he/she perhaps may be interested in setting up some customisation (but have to not forgot that forking and then keeping synchronized with update is not an easy thing) he/she want to have access to source. But if he/she think the application is nice, he/she can understand that funding help the autor to be ok and allow him/her to go further in the project. I have worked on a open source project about one year ago, modifications has been publically released by owner of the project (although some others were left private to avoid forking on the main and sole official repository). I would have work the same way on it if I would not have been allowed to redistribute modifications, just beceause I was needing the modifications I've made to this application. Open source is nice (even mandatory when dealing with some kind of users), but GPL is sometime good, sometime not > So, write in Ada and build your program for distribution using [what-ever= -suite-needs] > Job done. Fortunately, Ada is a hightly standardized (beside of beeing well design) language, so it really help to beleave in this kind of view. So yes, =93write in Ada=94 as your sentence start with, is perhaps the main statement here. If a little off-topic is allowed : do am I dreaming ? Is there really an Ada compiler personal licence for USD 150 at RRSoftware ? 8| http://www.rrsoftware.com/html/companyinf/prices.htm (huuu.... or perhaps there is something I did not understood) But I do not find about Ada 2005 in the listing