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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-22 14:49:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:46:26 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22934 Date: 2002-04-22T16:46:26-05:00 List-Id: David Botton wrote in message ... > > wrote in message >news:QEtw8.3627$eg5.1828187369@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... >> > Imagine if my development efforts would have been used to modify and extend >> > CLAW instead of writing GWindows...... >> I have, and I think it a great loss to the Ada community that you didn't. > >Your lic. wasn't condusive to it..... I agree, sad. I don't buy it. You and I discussed Claw, including the licensing at the Washington SigAda (4 years ago!). I know I told you then that the long-term plan was to make Claw publically available. If you had simply asked before starting to work on an alternative, you would have reminded me that we needed to open up the license. And I'm sure we could have worked out an acceptable time-table for that. In any case, I have to wonder why you decided to build something from scratch rather than building on top of Windex, which already existed and had the appropriate license. My guess, is that you fell into the same trap that many of us do: "I can do better than that...". Such a waste of effort. >> >GWindows covers almost all areas of CLAW (some intentionally not covered) >> >and is way beyond it in other areas (database to control bindings, ActiveX, >> David, it's good to see someone take pride in their product, but IMHO >> you exaggerate more than a bit. > >But less than a byte.... Note that I am not knocking your framework, I think >it is a masterful work and only regret that it was not available under >different lic. terms. > >These em' not fightin' words.... It just happens to be that I support >certain areas CLAW doesn't and a few other areas I do support CLAW is a bit >more thorough. If you had a better lic. you would of course be able to grab >some code for GWindows and GNATCOM...... but oh well. What do you mean by this? Did you mean "grab some code *from* ..."? If that's what you mean, the answer is "possibly". The Claw tasking model makes it hard to use code in the bindings that wasn't designed for it. Luckily, that complexity doesn't extend to the user's code... > Perhaps, but hopefully we will both be around for another 180 years to see > others enjoy our work. Perhaps by then CLAW will well then be lic. with the > GMGPL unless of course Ada takes over than GPL..... You won't have to wait more than however long it takes to read cla today to see that.... Randy.