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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,58988230753075de X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-31 11:33:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!iad-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: Re: In praise of Ada Freeware Message-ID: References: <87wv4r1uy5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <+uc0vOZmzK9b@eisner.encompasserve.org> <5ee5b646.0107291409.6538ad64@posting.google.com> <4ajzJ$TMn9o+@eisner.encompasserve.org> <5PA97.12687$ar1.39620@www.newsranger.com> <86B97.12723$ar1.39955@www.newsranger.com> Organization: LJK Software Date: 31 Jul 2001 14:32:51 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 996604374 216.44.122.34 (Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:32:54 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:32:54 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10887 Date: 2001-07-31T14:32:51-05:00 List-Id: In article <86B97.12723$ar1.39955@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison writes: > I'm being a bit unfair here, as this is but a single example. But if you mean > "Freeware" to include terms such as these, I would submit that your argument > would be better served by something at least a *little* more free. Again, I > think you *should* be shooting for (if you weren't already), "permissively > licensed" Free Software. Yes, that sounds a bit restrictive. As I said, the emergence of GPL (and desireable software using it) caused them to change the rules to allow submitters to set their own boundaries. The only piece of this I have worked with lately has much looser rules, something like "don't erase my copyright from the source". Someone asked in USENET why that item didn't do XYZ. I mentioned that I found it easy to adapt to make it do XYZ, and I later got email from the author asking if he could get my changes to put into the master copy he keeps. Neither of us engaged a lawyer, although we certainly do have a formal agreement when my company buys software from his company.