Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)

["David Starner" <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org>]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in
message news:9kosp0$dje$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> Well, one way to get it done would be for a handful of Ada advocates to
> build a desirable library under the Ada Developers Cooperative License and
> make it available on the net. Compiler vendors could freely bundle the
> library(ies) with their compilers and would be encouraged to do so.
[...]
> I'd think it would be
> nothing but up-side for them to have it done under the ADCL.

If it was done under an open source license, ACT might add it to both the
private and public releases of GNAT, and it would be included in at least
one operating system (Debian) as soon as possible. If it's done under the
ADCL, ACT won't add it to the public release, and I seriously doubt it would
add it to the private releases (ACT has shown reluctance to pass costs onto
their customers, as shown by them no longer using cygwin), and I don't know
of any OS vendors who would jump to include it.

> Asking someone to volunteer to make a library in his spare time and make
it
> available everywhere freely and never offer any compensation to him is
going
> to require that we find either a saint or a fool.

I find that somewhat insulting; there are 400 Debian developers (including
me) who are putting together an operating system for no monetary
compensation, and I can tell you that few of us are saints.

Frankly, not everyone values monetary compensation as much as you do. I have
enough money and quasi-monetary resources to keep me feed, clothed and in
college for the next year, with a little money for computer and roleplaying
junk on the side. I don't need money; I'm looking peer respect and
intellectual stimulation. Personally, the money coming from the ADCL would
have too much legal complexity to be worth anything; you'd need to get an
accountant or lawyer involved to handle anything. If thousands were coming
in, it might be worth it, but I rather bet on "Make Money Fast" schemes.

> I don't see any big rush
> on the part of developers here to do this - so maybe that is evidence that
> giving it away free is not sufficient incentive to get the job done

IMO, the ADCL would be an overall negative incentive; it would drive away
any open-source people who would work on it, and attract very few people who
care about money (who probably figure it the same way I do; there's a small
chance of this being worth anything, so going into expecting to get enough
money to pay for my time is stupid.)

Sometimes things just don't come together right; the world of programming is
littered with dead projects. If someone wants to get together another try
(or restart an old one) under a reasonable licenes (XFree or GNAT-modified
GPL - something with few strings attached), I'm willing to work on it. Maybe
this time it will work; maybe it won't. I don't think using the ADCL will
affect that positively.

--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
"The pig -- belongs -- to _all_ mankind!" - Invader Zim