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-Thread: 103376,d0f6c37e3c1b712a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO? References: <1151405920.523542.137920@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> From: M E Leypold Date: 30 Jun 2006 10:39:08 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.230.215 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1151656364 88.72.230.215 (30 Jun 2006 10:32:44 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!koehntopp.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5370 Date: 2006-06-30T10:39:08+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > M E Leypold 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