Re: New open source UML tool including Ada support

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

> Please enjoy it.

I will. I hope, I will.

> Regarding the press release, I would apologize if I felt it was
> appropriate to do so. I do not. The techno was legally placed into
> open source at the time of the press release (actually a few weeks
> before). The only question is ease of public access. 

OK, I understand.

> As of that time
> the sources were already in the hands of people who immediately needed
> it. As I've described, there is a slight delay for general public
> availability because some third party IP cleansing is required. I did
> not know about that at the time of the press release, but if I had I
> would have gone ahead anyway because making the info available is more
> important, although certainly a word or two might have been tweaked.

That would have been advisable. What is available now to selected
persons, is, obviously, not what will be available. A small
difference. It's slips like that that generate -- well -- suspicion.

> I should point out that my contact info is on each press release, and
> anyone with questions is welcome to contact me. It would prove more
> productive than speculating on minutia on comp.lang.ada because I
> don't personally monitor this group.

Well, public is public. The danger of press releases is, that they
will be discussed. Somewhere else, probably. You being VP of merketing
should know how that is: There is no way to unpublish information and
what you said stays said and it doesn't count what it should have
meant, just what is written.

I'm actually less interested to know NOW what will happen (that will
be seen when it comes), but more in the (contradictory) semantics of
the release. My issue is/was not what Aonix will do (only the future
will tell for sure :-), but, admittedly splitting hairs. I didn't have
any questions. Being the cynic that I am, I'll continue to split hairs
in the license soup when I find them. Actually to discourage
speculations it would have been prudent to (a) use the future tense
in the press release (we're back to quare 1 here) and (b) make the
actual license already available at the site (w/o hiding it in a
executable, that is). May I suggest that this could still be done
before the source becomes available?

Regards -- Markus