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: 103376,9a5f3bd162009c01 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news-west.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!cyclone2.kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.com!tornado.socal.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005: Too clever by half? References: <70e0e$4331acfc$4995583$14979@ALLTEL.NET> From: Keith Thompson Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z900pM/PiIjBy75AzOn1HZLAv7I= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:20:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.136.120 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: tornado.socal.rr.com 1127334053 66.75.136.120 (Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:20:53 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:20:53 PDT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5013 Date: 2005-09-21T20:20:53+00:00 List-Id: "Marc A. Criley" writes: > Maybe AdaCore is smarter than we've realized, intentionally or perhaps > accidentally? > > Consider this scenario: [...] > DTraq has been licensed under the GMGPL, as has most other GNAT aided > software developed by Ada enthusiasts. If I were to use the new GNAT > GPL 2005, I would pretty much be driven to changing that to the full > GPL. > > And then it struck me. > > So what? [...] > So here's the net result: [...] > On the other hand, if you're a greedy proprietary capitalist > developing a product whose external functionality and use is language > independent, GPL GNAT 2005 is also just fine, since by the requisite > GPLing of your application, it will keep the vast majority of your > customers from taking your source code and doing anything other than > reading it. All they'll be able to do with your product then is _use_ > it (and perhaps modify it on their own, _if_ they have the expertise > to do so). > > I'm mulling this over... Couldn't your customer also redistribute your sources to someone else, who might otherwise have paid you for a copy of your product? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.