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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a2c7f6cbdb72aa16 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Ken Garlington" Subject: Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux Date: 2000/05/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 628114695 References: <8gppqa$og7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 959476044 216.215.75.118 (Sat, 27 May 2000 20:07:24 CDT) Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:07:24 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:8gppqa$og7$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > Some months > ago, I had to spend quite a bit of time on the phone explaining > to a procurement guy at Lockheed Lockheed Martin, please. The distinction is subtle but important. > that he did NOT need us to > execute a source escrow agreement, because we had already > supplied all the sources, and Lockheed had all the access that > they would get from opening a source escrow (and more) already. > Finally he understood, and agreed that "OK, I guess we don't > need a source escrow in that case" :-) A procurement guy who finally understood? OK, maybe it's not Lockheed Martin after all :)