Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
> 
> > Well -- if you, as JC seemed to imply -- are working for a company
> > that is providing programming service to large aerospace companies
> > and of those some in turn seem to have a "no GPL" policy in place
> > now, as other posts seem to imply: You wouldn't want to explain to
> > them the difference between Gnat GPL and Gnat Pro. You'd like to
> > avoid the "GPL stink", someone put it here
> 
> I really don't see this as a problem; I work for a large aerospace
> company, we are so far as I know quite happy with the service we get
> from our vendors and the licence terms are OK too. I hope we aren't so
> blinkered as to go off on a rant against anything with G, P and L in
> its licence.

I've only been trying to summarize the arguments of an earlier post
(not mine) and also relate them to another post here which used the
words "GPL stink". Personally I can imagine that denial or
forgetfulness of past licensing and distribution term might cast
shadows of doubt over all that source and also support GPL FUD. But
regarding the "large aerospace companies" I've actually no
experience. 

As I said: I only wanted to summarize someone elses arguments here.

Actually I'd be happy to hear, that the industry at large had not
problem with the GPL. My experience in the small unfortunately has
been partially different.

Regards -- Markus