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,df1a7f1c3c3bc77e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: An Ada Advice Inquiry References: <463B7BBF.4080603@obry.net> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 22:51:39 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:gmIPEPsiocICmUPHbP9qB/XR1xY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.233.39 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1178311402 88.72.233.39 (4 May 2007 22:43:22 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder2.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder.news-service.com!194.25.134.62.MISMATCH!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: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15556 Date: 2007-05-04T22:51:39+02:00 List-Id: Michael Bode writes: > "Ed Falis" writes: > >> So make your own licensing less restrictive and you won't have that >> problem, will you? > > There are two answers to this question: Oh no! Now all of "them" -- the "GPL is more free than BSD", "Think about the users", "If you don't want GPL, just cough up some K$ and buy a commercial ...", "If you can't afford it, you're are not to be taken serious", "how can you expect vendor X to give you HIS TOOLS for free, if you don't want to give your work for free", "you have another problem altogether, you should ..." -- will be coming out of the woodwork again. I'm completely on your side here (and I even would like to bash certain compiler vendors). > > a) this is not my decision. I actually like the GPL. But since this is > c.l.a and not soc.free.software I'd say that LGPL would work better to > support the use of Ada. > b) what if I would make my licensing as unrestrictive as the BSD > license? Less free, you know ;-). > I really don't want to bash certain compiler vendors. Everyone can do > what he likes: the compiler vendor can choose the licensing as he > likes, the compiler user can buy the licensing scheme he likes and And everyone of them has to live with the consequences :-). Some of them, though, want to have their cake and eat it, like being so understanding about certain vendors, but at the same time mourn for the lost future of Ada. > there's always the possibility to use another language like C[++|#], > Java, what else. > Since there are threads like this on a regular basis (the last one was > "What's wrong with Ada?" I wonder if there might be a correlation > between the popularity of a language and the tools + licenses it > has. Certainly. :-)). > I note that the answer to my initial question ("Wanted:...") was not > the name or website of a tools vendor but to change my > requirements. And that is telling. > If I would s/Ada/Java/ or s/Ada/C/ in that question, I > bet I'd get a few URLs as a reply. ... Regards -- Markus