Re: Development process in the Ada community

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

Ted Dennison wrote in message
<4519e058.0204170958.22f797c4@posting.google.com>...
>Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:<3CBCEB15.E104D1F5@adaworks.com>...
>> Ted Dennison wrote:
>The issue is how something can become "standard". I can
>only see two ways:
>
>1) It is distributed with every appropriate compiler (either by fiat
>or agreement). Examples of this are the standard Ada libraries, and
>the Win32Ada bindings. Let us not forget that the Win32Ada bindings
>are indeed the *standard* low-level Win32 bindings. No one's been
>talking about them because low-level bindings are so yucky that no one
>really wants to use them. Let us also not forget that the Win32Ada
>bindings were created by Intermetrics, a company that, like RR, is in
>the business of selling licenses to proprietary software (or at least
>was at the time).


Win32Ada was created under a contract which required Intemetrics to make
it available free. So, of course they did so. Moreover, what they
created is NOT pure, portable, Ada, and in fact is NOT available with
"every appropriate compiler" (in so much as it is not included with
Janus/Ada, and in fact doesn't compile with Janus/Ada, either. We of
course provide a Win32 binding based on our 16-bit Win 3.1 binding, but
it isn't much like the Intermetrics one. That's no real issue, as no one
ought to use Win32Ada anyway: for GUI, use Claw or something else; for
the occassional thread or file system API, bind it in place.)


>> powerful set of capabilities.   I suspect Randy would not turn down
>> any offer of help in developing additional packages to extend the
>> CLAW software.
>
>I'm sure he wouldn't. What I'm missing here is what's in it for *me*.
>I have no interest in helping to improve some company's proprietary
>product, unless I am paid to do so. (and frankly I have plenty of
>paying work on my plate at the moment already. I'm not interested in
>taking on any more.) I certianly do some volunteer work that involves
>using, and perhaps improving, Windows bindings. However, I do that for
>the good of the community, not any one party's private good (that's
>why its called "volunteer" work).
>
>I've dealt with RR before, and they seemed like a great company, and
>great guys. If there were true justice in the universe I'm sure they'd
>be swimming in cash by now. But I just can't convince myself that
>their stockholders are a worthy enough cause to become the primary
>benificiary of my volunteer efforts. I'd rather donate time on
>something that everyone in the (Ada) community can use, not just the
>select few to whom some company deigns to grant a license.


Of course, you can always put any such work out under any license that
you prefer (including the GMGPL), which would certainly have the effect
of prevent us from including it in the Claw package and making any money
off of it. And certainly, the Claw Introductory version is available
under a "free for non-commercial use" license. So that hardly qualifies
as a "select few". (Indeed, that always has been true for the Claw
Introductory version, although we didn't originally spell it out clearly
on our website.) You may even be able to talk me to widening that more;
the primary reason for the "non-commercial" restriction is to prevent
people from selling the Introductory version itself (or enhancements of
it), not to prevent people from using it in a commercial environment. We
could find any words that covered the one that didn't cover the other,
or get so complicated as to be impossible to understand. Finally we
decided to use a variation on Aonix's ObjectAda license.

            Randy Brukardt.