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: 103376,7684e927a2475d0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!feed1.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!xara.net!gxn.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: can one build commercial applications with latest gnat and other
 licenses related questions...
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:09:30 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2sllteyd1.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <tLmlg.119263$dW3.82693@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
 <449660f0$0$11077$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
 <jowtbdcubc.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1150717184.087134.177850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <e7f7t6$qie$1@online.de>
 <1151050924.969806.284410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <e7h852$7h0$1@online.de>
 <1151153353.337673.47780@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <jy7j36r8dk.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1151163648.229335.150000@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1151269767 8847 62.49.19.209 (25 Jun 2006 21:09:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:09:27 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4EghRpiMzsxnwVcRwrkv3RKfUGQ=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5011
Date: 2006-06-25T22:09:30+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"george" <gshapovalov@gmail.com> writes (quoting an AdaCore person):

> Right, I do not think this is worth doing. The mention inside source
> files have no real legal value anyway.

I don't suppose that has been tested in court either.  Here are all of
us non-lawyers assuming that a company such as AdaCore, led by an
expert in software copyright issues, would take the trouble to get its
publicly-visible statements related to copyright consistent.