Re: In praise of Ada Freeware

[Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <5ee5b646.0107301233.66e4c147@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<6jSXphU8E$xY@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> 
>> Given that some companies want something that does not have the GPL
>> restrictions, Freeware is a mechanism that can expose them to Ada.
> 
> Again, the term Freeware is just not sufficiently well defined for
> anyone to be able to deduce what you are saying.

Certainly not to those, like you, who have been following this thread :-).

> Now if you are saying that some companies don't like the GPL because
> it restricts what they can do, that of course is true, it is not as
> restrictive as, say, the Microsoft license (which is why the MS
> complaints are a bit peculiar), but it is definitely restrictive.

And some people don't like Ada because it has been used by the
US government.  No matter what restriction, or lack of restriction,
you put on something, someone will object.  No doubt some object
to non-GPL software because it does not further the cause of GPL.

> If what you want is to encourage the use of a particular license, then
> say so, and say what exactly you are encouraging!

I am suggesting there is a place for some (useful) software with no
restrictions at all.  Since there is also a place for software with
the GPL restrictions, one might think there is a place for others
in between (e.g., a requirement for giving credit).