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: 103376,6e045a5e739e2c80 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.221.4 with SMTP id qa4mr12168184pbc.7.1330364224281; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:04 -0800 (PST) Path: h9ni15921pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!s13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Re=Fun_with_History why_wasnt_Ada83_object_oriented Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:03 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <15362655.665.1330003793505.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbox6> <16281078.142.1330268011388.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynll40> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1330364223 10669 127.0.0.1 (27 Feb 2012 17:37:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:37:03 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-02-27T09:37:03-08:00 List-Id: On Feb 26, 10:28=A0am, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57) wrote: > Le Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:59:07 +0100, Dennis Lee Bieber > a =E9crit: > > > On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:53:31 -0800 (PST), Marco > > declaimed the following in comp.lang.ada: > > >> It probably wasn't legal to use the term "Ada" for an incomplete > >> implementation and they were probably sued by the DoD. > > > =A0 =A0At the least, a cease&desist order... > > > =A0 =A0As I recall, DOD had the name locked down to "no subset, no > > superset" -- if it diverged from the language reference, it could not b= e > > called "Ada". > > To be exact, this is allowed if the compiler provides an option to make i= t > act in strict Ada mode. This is explicitly stated somewhere in the first > pages of the Reference Manual. That has been the case starting with Ada 95. But, by then, Ada was no longer trademarked. The inside cover of my copy of the earlier Reference Manual (for what we now call Ada 83) stated that "Ada(R) is a registered trademark of the United States Government, Department of Defense, Under Secretary for Research and Engineering ... In all contexts, use of the term "Ada" should indicate conformance to the standard. ... The use of the trademarked term Ada will be made freely available to those who use it to indicate conformance to the standard and in conformance with the following guidelines: ... Describing, advertising, or promoting a language processor as an "Ada" processor is equivalent to making a voluntary statement of conformance to ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A. The term Ada may be used in describing language processors which are not completely conforming or are not making a claim of conformance provided that there is a precise, easily visible statement of their non-conformance at the same time and in the same context." There's something about misuse of the term possibly leading to legal action, but the cover of my Ada 83 RM has been torn up over the years and I can't quote it. The trademark was allowed to lapse in 1987. After that, I believe, it would have been legal to call a compiler an Ada compiler even if it was just a subset. It couldn't claim to be certified or validated, which might have been a stopper for big commercial users, but probably not for hobbyists paying $100 for a PC version. -- Adam