Re: GWindows and a future home for it

[Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> And you must resort to  subtrefugial, convoluted, parasitic commercial
>> schemes like the "request" or dual licensing.
> 
> [toy story] None of the adjectives you use apply to
> this circumstance, nor to the similar labels on GNAT Pro. ACT maintains
> that versions of GNAT Pro are suitable for the customer who gets them,
> and not necessarily for the public at large, because development and
> testing are done for particular customers on particular platforms. Anyone
> who chooses to disregard this is perfectly free to do so, but then ACT
> takes no responsibility for the suitablity of the results.

If this is the only purpose of the request, "no warranties", then I 
stand corrected on the issue of GNAT Pro licensing.

> Apparently the authors do not find it unfair, since they persist in making
> more free software. Apparently their paying customers are satisfied, since
> they are in fact paying. As far as I can tell, everyone is perfectly 
> satisfied with these arrangements.

Excelent. As I said, "all is well in open source dreamland".

, except for people who seem to want the benefits of
> being an ACT customer without actually becoming one.

Please don't put intentions on my mind. I'm simply discussing software 
licensing. Some people have left open source dreamland. They are 
gathering at the SDC and other places. They have posted articles there 
explaining why dual licensing is parasitic. And the other adjectives.