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=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, XPRIO_SHORT_SUBJ autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,828c115241d90eca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-18 20:05:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!opentransit.net!jussieu.fr!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: ADCL Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:04:00 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 995511957 47992 137.194.161.2 (19 Jul 2001 03:05:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:05:57 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3B55ACAB.3EB3CF69@PublicPropertySoftware.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10223 Date: 2001-07-18T20:04:00-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: Al Christians et al. ---------------------------------------- From: the ADA DEVELOPERS COOPERATIVE LICENSE (Draft), Version 0.3 by Robert C. Leif "??" means these numbers are my first guess. Section 4.3. The measurement of software units will by a tool based on the Ada Semantic Interface Specification. This tool will measure (Linked Lines of Source Text or Feature Points ??) with the complexity term based on Ada semantics. 1.26. "Feature Points" means a super set of function points which was defined by the Software Productivity Research, Inc. in 1986, as cited in What Are Function Points? by Capers Jones, Chairman, Software Productivity Research, Inc. (http://www.spr.com/library/0funcmet.htm. Last visited 29 October, 1998. Feature Points add the number of algorithms to the parameters employed to measure Function Points. 1.27. "Original Lines of Source Text" means a unit of software which is defined as the total number of semicolons (';') minus the sum of ) the semicolons contained within comments. ) 0.75?? times the semicolons contained in renaming declarations. ) 0.75?? times the semicolons contained in subtype declarations which do not include a range. 1.28. "Linked Lines of Source Text" means a unit of software which is defined as the total number of semicolons which would be actually used in the linked Executable if ) all loop structures remained intact (no unrolling); ) all instantiations of generics are treated as the equivalent of the source text which would have been created without the use of the generic; ) all instances of inherited subprograms of tagged types are treated as the equivalent of the source text which would have been created without the use of the tagged type. -------------------------------- Lines of code is a crude approximation to get us going. R. C. Leif, "Ada Developers Cooperative License (Draft) Version 0.3", Ada letters XIX, No 1 pp. 97-107 (1999). -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Al Christians Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:35 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: ADCL "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote: > > Of course, I agree. There are several interesting differences between > software and other copyrightable items. Object-oriented design and > large libraries can result in a product using only a small amount of > a developer's creation. The royalties should be based on what is > linked. Run-time binding is beyond me. As royalties that depend on how smart the linker is are beyond my ken. The simplest would be for the author to puplich a flat $ amount per copy for commercial use instead of the percent based on SLOC. Do you really want me to just pad my SLOC count to reduce your royalty? This public license with fixed royalty per copy works for music. With a license offering based on flat fee per copy sold, the author can at least take a guess at how much advantage his package offers in comparison to whatever the competition (commercial, free, write it myself) is, and a whole lot of complicated math and what-if questions are cleanly avoided. The idea (that Ada promoters should promote, I think) is that software parts should to embody the same positive qualities that work for hardware parts (in reliability, in buy-vs-build comparisons, and in ease of interconnection), and pricing accordingly would strengthen that perception. Al