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,ed34204f6da15e19 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DTraq Released References: <44916CA0.9080909@earthlink.net> From: M E Leypold Date: 20 Jun 2006 17:21:39 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.231.248 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1150816552 88.72.231.248 (20 Jun 2006 17:15:52 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4866 Date: 2006-06-20T17:21:39+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > Thanks for a valuable discussion. > > The only reason I got involved was that I felt that people were > getting the wrong end of the stick about GPL licensing and the impact > on their own code, which is as we all know an emotive issue round > here. It's less emotion on my part or obsessiveness for my code. It's just simple "business considerations". Let's take GtkAda which now seems to be GPL only. With the new situation I have 2 options: - Develop GPL code only. Some customers don't like that, since they don't want to grant me the right to distribute the control programs I'm writing for them. Probably that could be fixed by having a contractual agreement (perhaps, IANAL), but usually their lawyers are unsettled enough by the vicinity to GPL code that they are not sure wether I'm actually bound to that agreement: So to be sure they prefer to let their process control made in C# or Java (That case is real so don't coplain to me anyone). - I start big and pay the ACT support with (one hears $ 15000.- / year). Of course that would rise the fix cost for Ada programming so much that I would be forced to programm Ada in almost 100% of the projects. There is no market for this. The market could be bootstrapped by starting small projects with Ada and using them as reference and the knowhow acquired there to get the next customer(s) to try Ada instead of Java or .Net. Unfortunately that bootstrapping needs time. With the old GMPL license for GtkAda one could try to bootstrap a clientele of Ada customers slowly. With GPL-or-buy-ACT-support and an entry barrier of $15000.- its a all-or-nothing proposition. Certainly nothing to stimulate a community which would use Ada instead of C. A bit emotion admittedly comes in at the point where license change from GMPL to GPL (this is a restriction as I have tried to explain), after on has inversted time and effort into Ada infrastructure (which is now over day and year only good for option 1: GPL softwaredevelopment). I've been following the discussion on c.l.a. on the issue of GNAT GPL in c.l.a end of last year and have to say that I found the GPL protagonists ("Do you expect AdaCore to work for nothing") also not quite so cool and rational then. Obviously there is emotion on both sides here. One of the reasons I didn't participate then and one of the reasons I already sort of regret that I started this discussion. Regards -- Markus