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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bill Richards Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Anti-Ada FUD (rant) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 07:49:04 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <2f813569-5ff8-4c20-a5ab-8538e6514906@googlegroups.com> <7xeh8fxahu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: UUDAoBQ3tL0isX+TGGmlkQ.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Original-Bytes: 2730 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183432 Date: 2013-09-24T07:49:04+00:00 List-Id: On 2013-09-24, Bill Findlay wrote: > On 24/09/2013 08:05, in article l1rdj8$uge$1@speranza.aioe.org, "Bill > Richards" wrote: > >> We don't use it where I work although I've used the so-called gcc-ada for >> some personal projects. I'm well aware where it comes from. I paid for >> it. And so did anyone else who was paying U.S. income tax when NYU received >> the federal grant to develop it. It's a neat trick that somebody was able to >> turn a federally-funded educational software development project into a >> private, for-profit business. Hint: the code was not GPL until after 3.15p. > > And you call that communist? No! I'm calling Linux/GPL communist and saying there's much wrong about UNIX. Much about UNIX is contrary to what Ada is all about. This thread has become very confusing but Ada/GPL was not what I (or anyone) was talking about until Paul brought it up. > It's in the best traditions of pork-barrel capaitalism, isn't it? It certainly could have been. I don't understand how they got away with it though. Makes you wonder how often this sort of thing has happened. Of course the other way around happens a lot too, where some person or company spends all the money and effort creating or developing something and the government appropriates it. California is famous for this. Find and cultivate a source of water or minerals or some other natural resource on so-called "private land", spend millions or hundreds of millions on development, and then the state grabs it under some "Public Good" clause or otherwise ties you up in court for a decade until you can't afford the legal bills anymore. Makes you wonder how private the land was, or why it was worth buying or even how it was possible to buy it in the first place... Bill