Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

[Sorry about breaking the thread; I could post a reply because the "headers 
are too long". Bah.]

"David Botton" <david@botton.com> wrote in message
news:724c3565-8fb0-446a-affe-22ea2b86d08f@googlegroups.com...
>> 5,000,000 copies.
>
>How many were non-DoD, they don't count, they had to us it.

The majority of RR customers were individuals, not companies. Before GNAT,
Janus/Ada was often the compiler used by students, and we had deals with a
number of universities where we sold the compilers in the bookstore as part
of the required class materials. I'm sure those got used (maybe not for
long, but that's irrelevant).

But of course I can't tell you where the people who bought these things
worked.

>> Stuff like
>> program correctness is just too hard to be built by few people in their
>> spare time.
>
>And so the DoD, Apple and others invested/invest and for their own motives
>require
>their efforts end in a way to benefit the masses to create trickle up.

DoD doesn't buy such things anymore, so far as I can tell. Consumer-oriented
companies like Apple don't get a damn about correctness, so far as I can
tell. They expect to fix it after the fact, it's usually cheaper.

>> Since the ideas are ways to make software development better, there is
>> nothing else to monitize. I'm not remotely interested in developing
>> software
>> for people that aren't already computer experts -- it's hard enough to
>> please
>> people that understand you and with which you have something in common.

>The "secret" to a great product is to only produce what you yourself want
>to use and
> have passion for. The only things I've regretted in my life are the few
> times I worked
> for the money and not for the passion of the product itself and those
> times _hurt_ me.

>May you be lucky enough in life to never have to and may we always share
>with you
> the things you do for their own sake :) Since the RM is fantastic (I
> learned Ada from
> it and use it constantly, I can't say that about any other language and
> most of my life's
> coding has not been in Ada) I can only assume you enjoy working on it and
> the other
> projects of yours we enjoy.

I didn't set out to spend a good part of my working life as an editor for
other people's work, but it pays the bills and it turns out I'm pretty good
at it. I do have a passion for statically-checked programming languages, but
here the RM is a means to the end.

>> You're probably right. As far as I can tell, there is no remaining
>> business
>> model for anything that I am competent at or care about.
>
> No, you just need to partner with someone that can share your passion, but
> perhaps not your skills, and has the skills to monitize it.

We'll have to talk. ;-)

...
>> Indeed, I don't understand why you think Gnoga will be good for Ada
>> beyond
>> an improvement for the existing believers. After all, if the model is so
>> good, someone will copy it for C++ or Java, and they'll get the trade
>> press
>> for it, and [almost] everyone will think that the people who copied it
>> invented it.
>
>If I was thinking about "money" I would have written Gnoga in Python. (I
>wouldn't
>respect myself in the morning though...)
>
>I wrote gnoga in Ada because I enjoy coding in Ada.
>I wrote Gnoga because I want Gnoga and need it for me.
>I publish Gnoga as Open Source because I want others to enjoy the music.
>I publish in GMGPL because that will benefit Ada and other developers
>
>If the business models (I've only shared a bit here and there with anyone)
>work
>out then my investment pays with cash too and for everyone (win win) and if
>it
>doesn't I sang my music even if only I enjoyed it and did what I could to
>help
>Ada _and_ the Ada community beyond the niche (win win).

All fair enough, I just don't see why it will help Ada beyond making it
easier to use/justify for the already converted (like me). But feel free to
prove me wrong. (I fear I'm getting old enough that my advice tends to sound
like "get off my lawn!", but I suspect that is a necessary result of
experience.)

...
>> Sadly, that's how I've treated Ada for the last 10+ years. Hope that it
>> lasts until I reach retirement.
>
>If I can help it, Ada will :)
>
>(I don't even care how pompous that sounds, if I can't believe I will make
>a
>difference for Ada (and that has happened before...) I wouldn't bother with
>it.)

Doesn't sound pompous to me. Sounds like something I would have said years
ago (and still might again).

>> As far as I can tell, I've never possessed any of these things except for
>> passion (I'd put the equation at:
>>      Ignorance + ego + previous experience with small business + passion
>> +
>> luck = Success)
>> ...and the passion and luck were squeezed out years ago by Open Source
>> and
>> the takeover of the computer business by massive corps -- essentially
>> catching the real innovators in a vice.
>
>When your formula isn't succeeding it is a sign that it has bugs. Try mine
>it doesn't
> have aspects and fancy stuff like that, but its been debugged and run
> enough years
> to be considered proven stable.

:-) Actually, my formula worked pretty well for a long time. The company
built worked well enough to survive 20 years, which is quite a feat for a
small business. The problem these days is that I know too much about how
hard it is to succeed (the "luck" part is a significant part of the deal -
in our case, that we started with Ada rather than Modula).

Anyway, back to work making other people's Ada compilers better. (I'm
working on new ACATS tests this week.)

                          Randy.