RE: Commercial license?

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

Although this is, in principle, true, it is much easier with present Ada
compilers, such as GNAT, to supply the source. Some of us had to suffer with
attaching binary libraries with the old Alsys Ada compiler. 
Since I am proposing a license, which would compete with the GNU licenses, I
want to maintain what I believe to be the best part of the GNU approach, the
availability of the sources. 
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: David C. Hoos [mailto:david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:26 AM
To: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway
Subject: Re: Commercial license?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Commercial license?


> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> > Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
> >: Obviously
> >: if you are supplying a library, it must be in source.
> > 
> > How is that? Am I missing something?
> 
> If you look at the GNAT compiler it needs the source code for Ada
> libraries. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is what he was referring to?
>
Not true.  The facts are that if you provide a library, the only source
you need to supply is that for the specifications -- not the bodies,
in order for the library to be used.  Thus, it is possible to keep
the implementation proprietary.
 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_ug_unx/Creating-an-Ada-Library.html
> 
> -- 
>   ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
>  +||-.
> .+--+'
> '+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>