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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,58988230753075de,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-29 04:55:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.siscom.net!easynews!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: In praise of Ada Freeware Message-ID: Organization: LJK Software Date: 29 Jul 2001 07:54:55 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 996407705 216.44.122.34 (Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:55:05 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:55:05 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10687 Date: 2001-07-29T07:54:55-05:00 List-Id: Some advocate using GPL licensing for software because it makes it more available to others, regardless of vendor changes of heart. In many cases they believe a revolution in the nature of software licensing and distribution is appropriate. Some advocate using traditional licensing because it better fits the general economic model for other goods (aside from recipes :-). In many cases they feel it will be better accepted by the existing business establishment. There is a third model, where the originator allows others to use the software for any purpose without compensation, but imposes no restriction like GPL regarding publication of the amended source. That third model is often criticized by the GPL fans (because the amended source is not available) and by the traditional model fans (because there is no compensation to the originator). On the other hand, it is happily adopted by traditional businesses in the case of very useful bodies of code, such as Apache. I believe the third method (known for years as Freeware) may have particular appeal to some Ada zealots, particularly if they have some other source of income from their "real job". Freeware gives no compensation to the originator. Freeware gives no guaranteed that the amended source will be made generally available. But companies that would adapt Freeware, and would not (for whatever reason) want to create GPL modifications, perform one goal of many zealots when they accept Ada Freeware -- they start using Ada. If instead they decide to transliterate Ada Freeware into some other language (and the Ada Freeware is well written), they get a example of how Ada can do much better.