and visual library once again

and visual library once again

[Szymon Guz]

Hi,
I know that I asked some time ago about that but it was so long ago that 
I thought that maybe something changed from that time: what visual 
library is available for using in Ada programs in (not only) windows ?

Another thing is that I got lost in the debate about new GNAT licence, 
so could anybody describe in 3 sentences what is wrong with GNAT 
(I know - the GPL licence, but is that all? ) and is there any free 
compiler for Windows ? (oh, I forgot - and for Mac).


regards
Szymon Guz

Re: and visual library once again

[Pascal Obry]

Szymon,

> I know that I asked some time ago about that but it was so long ago that
> I thought that maybe something changed from that time: what visual
> library is available for using in Ada programs in (not only) windows ?

GtkAda is a cross-platform (GNU/Linux, Windows and OS/X)

> Another thing is that I got lost in the debate about new GNAT licence,
> so could anybody describe in 3 sentences what is wrong with GNAT (I know
> - the GPL licence, but is that all? ) and is there any free compiler for
> Windows ? (oh, I forgot - and for Mac).

Nothing wrong. It just depends on what you want to do with it.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: and visual library once again

[Szymon Guz]

Pascal Obry napisał(a):
> Szymon,
> 
> 
>>I know that I asked some time ago about that but it was so long ago that
>>I thought that maybe something changed from that time: what visual
>>library is available for using in Ada programs in (not only) windows ?
> 
> 
> GtkAda is a cross-platform (GNU/Linux, Windows and OS/X)
thnx
> 

> 
>>Another thing is that I got lost in the debate about new GNAT licence,
>>so could anybody describe in 3 sentences what is wrong with GNAT (I know
>>- the GPL licence, but is that all? ) and is there any free compiler for
>>Windows ? (oh, I forgot - and for Mac).
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong. It just depends on what you want to do with it.
> 

sure, I want to sell my programs

Re: and visual library once again

[Pascal Obry]

Szymon,

> sure, I want to sell my programs

No problem to sell whatever.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: and visual library once again

[Szymon Guz]

Pascal Obry napisał(a):
> Szymon,
> 
> 
>>sure, I want to sell my programs
> 
> 
> No problem to sell whatever.
> 
> Pascal.
> 

right, but the GPL licence isnt't what I need, and that't why I'm asking 
if really using GNAT the program have to be on the GPL licence.

Re: and visual library once again

[Pascal Obry]

Szymon,

> right, but the GPL licence isnt't what I need, and that't why I'm asking
> if really using GNAT the program have to be on the GPL licence.

I pretty well understood what you wanted ;), but note that there is so
much confusion on this issue. All I have replied to you is just what you
have asked. You want to sell your program, no problem with GNAT GPL.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

> Szymon,
>
> > right, but the GPL licence isnt't what I need, and that't why I'm asking
> > if really using GNAT the program have to be on the GPL licence.
>
> I pretty well understood what you wanted ;), but note that there is so
> much confusion on this issue. All I have replied to you is just what you
> have asked. You want to sell your program, no problem with GNAT GPL.
>

Yes he can sell his program under the GPL license (as required by GNAT
GPL).

But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the
customer they sell it to (including the right of that customer to give
the source and binary to anyone else they want per the GPL).  That's a
pretty big difference for most people who "sell their programs". It can
lead to the immediate termination of your ability to sell any other
copies of the program to anyone else in many markets.

I'm actually a big supporter of the GPL and look forward to the day (5
to 100 years from now) when all (non-classified) computer programs will
be GPL'd or it's future equivalent.  However, in the present, there are
a lot of people for whom selling a program under the GPL would be
commercial suicide. If they need the income from the program to
survive, that is a pretty big problem.

Steve

Re: and visual library once again

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1129861178.782874.87870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Szymon,
>>
>> > right, but the GPL licence isnt't what I need, and that't why I'm asking
>> > if really using GNAT the program have to be on the GPL licence.
>>
>> I pretty well understood what you wanted ;), but note that there is so
>> much confusion on this issue. All I have replied to you is just what you
>> have asked. You want to sell your program, no problem with GNAT GPL.
>>
> 
> Yes he can sell his program under the GPL license (as required by GNAT
> GPL).
> 
> But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
> can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the
> customer they sell it to (including the right of that customer to give
> the source and binary to anyone else they want per the GPL).  That's a
> pretty big difference for most people who "sell their programs". It can
> lead to the immediate termination of your ability to sell any other
> copies of the program to anyone else in many markets.

It is not a problem for anyone who actually sells their software.

It is a problem for those who follow the customary practice of
Microsoft, Symantec, Computer Associates and actually _license_
their software rather than selling it.

Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

>I'm actually a big supporter of the GPL and look forward to the day (5
>to 100 years from now) when all (non-classified) computer programs will
>be GPL'd or it's future equivalent.  However, in the present, there are
  The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.  So 5 to 100
years from now programmers will be employees of government or other large
institutions/organizations?

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> So 5 to 100 years from now programmers will be employees of
 > government or other large institutions/organizations?

I would think that we don't have to wait.
Isn't this already the case now?

Re: and visual library once again

[Martin Dowie]

Steve Whalen wrote:
> But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
> can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the

They only have to give a copy if the customer asks for a copy...

...I've got the source code for OpenOffice sitting kicking around my 
drive somewhere - but it's of no use to me!

Cheers

-- Martin

Re: and visual library once again

[Szymon Guz]

Larry Kilgallen napisał(a):
> In article <1129861178.782874.87870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>>>Szymon,
>>>
>>>
>>>>right, but the GPL licence isnt't what I need, and that't why I'm asking
>>>>if really using GNAT the program have to be on the GPL licence.
>>>
>>>I pretty well understood what you wanted ;), but note that there is so
>>>much confusion on this issue. All I have replied to you is just what you
>>>have asked. You want to sell your program, no problem with GNAT GPL.
>>>
>>
>>Yes he can sell his program under the GPL license (as required by GNAT
>>GPL).
>>
>>But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
>>can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the
>>customer they sell it to (including the right of that customer to give
>>the source and binary to anyone else they want per the GPL).  That's a
>>pretty big difference for most people who "sell their programs". It can
>>lead to the immediate termination of your ability to sell any other
>>copies of the program to anyone else in many markets.
> 
> 
> It is not a problem for anyone who actually sells their software.
> 
> It is a problem for those who follow the customary practice of
> Microsoft, Symantec, Computer Associates and actually _license_
> their software rather than selling it.

do you mean that this is a bad practice ?

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> >I'm actually a big supporter of the GPL and look forward to the day (5
> >to 100 years from now) when all (non-classified) computer programs will
> >be GPL'd or it's future equivalent.  However, in the present, there are
>   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
> the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
> organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.  So 5 to 100
> years from now programmers will be employees of government or other large
> institutions/organizations?

Between 5 and 50 years from now hopefully we'll have a gradual
transition to more "shared" code as businesses realize it's to their
advantage to spend less on code that does NOT differentiate their
business (i.e. all the utility stuff like compilers and word processors
and accounting systems and inventory systems, etc.). The only people
business will pay to program will be working on the relatively short
list of things that actually give one company competitive advantage
over another. Some of this "shared code" will be written by paid
programmers for various forms of consortium that companies pay to
develop and enhance the commodity infrastructure software because they
can't gain competitive advantage from spending their own money on it.

Between 50 and 100 years from now there will be a massive deflationary
cycle as powerful computers combined with cheap electricity and
increasingly capable robots eliminate the cost of "labor" from the
economy.  Since the price performance of robots will begin to follow
that of the computers that drive them, all the basics (food, clothing,
shelter) will have their costs driven down toward zero.  At some point
the government will tax the robots and pay everyone $500 a month which
will be more than enough to live on.  You will be able to choose to
program, or to watch TV, or to garden, or to serve others, or do
nothing, just like in Star Trek <g>. Then programming will mostly be
done by people who do it because they love it, because nobody has to
work just to survive.

This projection of course comes with a money back guarantee <g>.

Steve

P.S. Also, the economics of software are very different from other
economics, because the cost of production is zero (i.e. once a program
is written it can be shared and/or run by an unlimited number of people
or companies for no additional cost).

--

"In an efficient market, price equals marginal cost. Marginal cost of
software: zero."

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <1129861178.782874.87870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
...
> > But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
> > can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the
> > customer they sell it to (including the right of that customer to give
> > the source and binary to anyone else they want per the GPL).
...
>
> It is not a problem for anyone who actually sells their software.
>
> It is a problem for those who follow the customary practice of
> Microsoft, Symantec, Computer Associates and actually _license_
> their software rather than selling it.

OK, I'll bite.  Why does it matter whether a programmer "licenses" a
program to customers or "sells" it?

I think the distinction relevant to whether or not the GPL creates a
"problem" for a programmer, is whether or not the programmer sells a
proprietary program (closed source to the world, whether or not source
is shipped with the binary). If the program being sold must be
proprietary (not "open source") in order to keep competitors (or
customers) from eliminating your income stream, then the GPL is a
problem, whether you "license" the software or "sell" it.

Yes the Microsofts of the world tend to license software instead of
selling it, but they have everything in common with a one person
programming shop which "sells" their program, if both must remain
"proprietary" in order to stay in business. GPL programs are also
"licensed" for a cost of $0 and compliance with the terms of the GPL,
which specifically precludes truly proprietary programs if you transfer
them (via sale OR licensing) to other people or companies (you can
write and use proprietary programs as long as you keep it inside your
company and don't sell it to others).

If Microsoft compiled the next version of their "Office" suite with
AdaCore's GNAT GPL compiler, their market would dry up the day after
they shipped the first copy and someone else got the source under the
GPL and compiled it and released it to the world.  Same thing would
happen to a one programmer shop in many markets.

Steve

Re: and visual library once again

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <dja6ia$2vtd$1@node1.news.atman.pl>, Szymon Guz <alpha@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT> writes:

>>>But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
>>>can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the=
> 
>>>customer they sell it to (including the right of that customer to give
>>>the source and binary to anyone else they want per the GPL).  That's a
>>>pretty big difference for most people who "sell their programs". It can=
> 
>>>lead to the immediate termination of your ability to sell any other
>>>copies of the program to anyone else in many markets.
>>=20
>>=20
>> It is not a problem for anyone who actually sells their software.
>>=20
>> It is a problem for those who follow the customary practice of
>> Microsoft, Symantec, Computer Associates and actually _license_
>> their software rather than selling it.
> 
> do you mean that this is a bad practice ?

I mean the (presumed) practice of denizens of comp.lang.ada saying
"sell my software" when they really mean "license my software" is
certainly bad.

But I suppose this meta-interchange is good, proving once again that
English is not a strongly typed language.  The Truth will set you Free.

Re: and visual library once again

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1129891429.987102.321970@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> In article <1129861178.782874.87870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
> ...
>> > But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
>> > can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the
>> > customer they sell it to (including the right of that customer to give
>> > the source and binary to anyone else they want per the GPL).
> ...
>>
>> It is not a problem for anyone who actually sells their software.
>>
>> It is a problem for those who follow the customary practice of
>> Microsoft, Symantec, Computer Associates and actually _license_
>> their software rather than selling it.
> 
> OK, I'll bite.  Why does it matter whether a programmer "licenses" a
> program to customers or "sells" it?

If you "sell" a program, the customer can make copies and "sell" it
to others.  If you "license" software, like both GPL adherents and
Microsoft do, the recipient can only make use of the software within
boundaries stipulated by the license.

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> If you "sell" a program, the customer can make copies and "sell" it
> to others.

Of course that isn't true. If someone sells you a book,
you cannot make copies and sell those to others. Why do
you think a program is different?

Re: and visual library once again

[Marc A. Criley]

Martin Dowie wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
> 
>> But it is important to remind anyone asking such a question that they
>> can sell the program ONLY if they give a copy of the source code to the
> 
> 
> They only have to give a copy if the customer asks for a copy...
> 
> ....I've got the source code for OpenOffice sitting kicking around my 
> drive somewhere - but it's of no use to me!

Which actually has some serendipitous relevance to comp.lang.ada 
denizens.  I can package up a commercial version of my application, 
compiled with GNAT GPL, and put the source code on the CD, along with 
all the GPL required notification files.  I then sell this to customers. 
  My customers now have the Ada source code, so what?  Unless they're 
knowledgeable Ada programmers, they're hardly likely to find the source 
code itself of any use to them.  While we'd all like Ada to be much more 
popular, the lack of popularity is almost as good (or bad, depending on 
your perspective :-) as having proprietary code, since the majority of 
the IT industry doesn't do Ada.

Yes, a customer has the right to distribute my application under the 
terms of the GPL.  But what they paid for was easy and direct access to 
the latest and greatest version, technical support, and immediate access 
to upgrades.  No one they distribute it to will have any of those 
benefits, and if my app gives my customer a competitive edge, they're 
hardly likely to pass it around.  I'm also free to _request_ that they 
not distribute the app (the GPL does not preclude doing this), and that 
if they choose to distribute anyway it will negatively impact our future 
business relationship.

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out

Re: and visual library once again

[Bob Spooner]

"Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129888684.681335.230450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> > >I'm actually a big supporter of the GPL and look forward to the day (5
> > >to 100 years from now) when all (non-classified) computer programs will
> > >be GPL'd or it's future equivalent.  However, in the present, there are
> >   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public
goods"
> > the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
> > organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.  So 5 to 100
> > years from now programmers will be employees of government or other
large
> > institutions/organizations?
>
> Between 5 and 50 years from now hopefully we'll have a gradual
> transition to more "shared" code as businesses realize it's to their
> advantage to spend less on code that does NOT differentiate their
> business (i.e. all the utility stuff like compilers and word processors
> and accounting systems and inventory systems, etc.). The only people
> business will pay to program will be working on the relatively short
> list of things that actually give one company competitive advantage
> over another. Some of this "shared code" will be written by paid
> programmers for various forms of consortium that companies pay to
> develop and enhance the commodity infrastructure software because they
> can't gain competitive advantage from spending their own money on it.
>

And just what differentiates the business of a software company such as
Microsoft?

> Between 50 and 100 years from now there will be a massive deflationary
> cycle as powerful computers combined with cheap electricity and
> increasingly capable robots eliminate the cost of "labor" from the
> economy.  Since the price performance of robots will begin to follow
> that of the computers that drive them, all the basics (food, clothing,
> shelter) will have their costs driven down toward zero.  At some point
> the government will tax the robots and pay everyone $500 a month which
> will be more than enough to live on.  You will be able to choose to
> program, or to watch TV, or to garden, or to serve others, or do
> nothing, just like in Star Trek <g>. Then programming will mostly be
> done by people who do it because they love it, because nobody has to
> work just to survive.

This sounds a lot like the predictions of about 40 years ago that with
automation, etc. the biggest problem we would have now would be what to do
with all the extra spare time. And yet the average person is working more
hours now.

>
> This projection of course comes with a money back guarantee <g>.
>
> Steve
>
> P.S. Also, the economics of software are very different from other
> economics, because the cost of production is zero (i.e. once a program
> is written it can be shared and/or run by an unlimited number of people
> or companies for no additional cost).
>
The cost of _distribution_ is very low. The cost of production, that is
development, of software, especially _good_ software, is high. Very few
companies are willing to make the kind of investment it takes to produce
good software. That's one of the reasons Ada isn't more widely used.
> --
>
> "In an efficient market, price equals marginal cost. Marginal cost of
> software: zero."
>
Only if the development cost can be amortized over an infinite number of
sales or licences or support contracts. Otherwise price does not equal
marginal cost and the development cost is highly relevant.

Bob

Re: and visual library once again

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Marc A. Criley a �crit :
> I'm also free to _request_ that they 
> not distribute the app (the GPL does not preclude doing this), and that 
> if they choose to distribute anyway it will negatively impact our future 
> business relationship.
> 
No, you are not. The definition of "free software" makes it very clear 
that you are allowed to redistribute it freely.

Note that ACT *never* tells something like this. They say that GAP is 
"intended" for education, or that Gnat Pro is "higly recommended" for 
professional software, but they are very careful never to tell 
explicitely something to the effect that it could not be redistributed - 
this would be against the GPL. The formulation is however designed to 
induce Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt...
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: and visual library once again

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1129902844.300659.188970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> If you "sell" a program, the customer can make copies and "sell" it
>> to others.
> 
> Of course that isn't true. If someone sells you a book,
> you cannot make copies and sell those to others.

Certainly you can.  Harper & Row does that all the time after
they buy a book from the author.

Perhaps you are thinking of "sell a copy of a book".

Can you suggest a common contract we can all examine that says it
"sells a copy of software" rather than "licenses" it ?

Re: and visual library once again

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:55:40 -0400, Bob Spooner wrote:

> "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129888684.681335.230450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>> Between 50 and 100 years from now there will be a massive deflationary
>> cycle as powerful computers combined with cheap electricity and
>> increasingly capable robots eliminate the cost of "labor" from the
>> economy.  Since the price performance of robots will begin to follow
>> that of the computers that drive them, all the basics (food, clothing,
>> shelter) will have their costs driven down toward zero.  At some point
>> the government will tax the robots and pay everyone $500 a month which
>> will be more than enough to live on.  You will be able to choose to
>> program, or to watch TV, or to garden, or to serve others, or do
>> nothing, just like in Star Trek <g>. Then programming will mostly be
>> done by people who do it because they love it, because nobody has to
>> work just to survive.

Depends on the definition of "survive." I bet, people storming Spain
borders in Africa differ on this mater with you. So would you with the
people living 100 years later.

> This sounds a lot like the predictions of about 40 years ago that with
> automation, etc. the biggest problem we would have now would be what to do
> with all the extra spare time. And yet the average person is working more
> hours now.

Because, probably the only one thing Marx was right about, is that in these
$500 only the amount of time spent by *human* beings counts. We trade with
other humans, we don't with automata! And we are trading our lives for the
lives of the others...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: and visual library once again

[Björn Persson]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
> the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
> organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.  So 5 to 100
> years from now programmers will be employees of government or other large
> institutions/organizations?

What definition of "organization" are you using if you can say that Red 
Hat is a large organization but Microsoft isn't?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: and visual library once again

[Marc A. Criley]

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Marc A. Criley a �crit :
> 
>> I'm also free to _request_ that they not distribute the app (the GPL 
>> does not preclude doing this), and that if they choose to distribute 
>> anyway it will negatively impact our future business relationship.
>>
> No, you are not. The definition of "free software" makes it very clear 
> that you are allowed to redistribute it freely.

Yes, I _am_ right...and so are you :-)

I posed this specific question to the FSF to get a clear answer.  Brett 
Smith from the Free Software Foundation Licensing Team replied that 
"There is nothing in the license to prevent this [threatening to 
withhold future support if the customer distributes the product]; in 
fact, Red Hat does exactly this with customers of their support 
services.  This is not quite the same thing as placing restrictions on 
the software -- after all, the customers are still legally able to 
exercise their rights under the GPL."

I added the portion in [brackets] to clarify exactly what "this" 
referred to.

Go to the source, Jean-Pierre!   :-)

-- Marc A. Criley
-- McKae Technologies
-- www.mckae.com
-- DTraq - XPath In Ada - XML EZ Out

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> Certainly you can.  Harper & Row does that all the time after
> they buy a book from the author.

They don't buy a book. They buy the right to make copies, which
otherwise is restricted to the copyright holder. In many cases
the contract specifies circumstances under which the publisher
will lose that right and it will revert back to the author.

> Perhaps you are thinking of "sell a copy of a book".

No. When I go to a bookstore and make a purchase, no one makes a
copy of a book. There are piles and cases of books available, and
I pick one up and buy it.

Re: and visual library once again

[Simon Wright]

"Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:

> I'm actually a big supporter of the GPL and look forward to the day
> (5 to 100 years from now) when all (non-classified) computer
> programs will be GPL'd or it's future equivalent.

In the environment I work in, there would IMO be no problem; since the
government agency that is purchasing the product requires full source
delivery anyway!

Re: and visual library once again

[Martin Dowie]

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Marc A. Criley a �crit :
> 
>> I'm also free to _request_ that they not distribute the app (the GPL 
>> does not preclude doing this), and that if they choose to distribute 
>> anyway it will negatively impact our future business relationship.
>>
> No, you are not. The definition of "free software" makes it very clear 
> that you are allowed to redistribute it freely.
> 
> Note that ACT *never* tells something like this. They say that GAP is 
> "intended" for education, or that Gnat Pro is "higly recommended" for 
> professional software, but they are very careful never to tell 
> explicitely something to the effect that it could not be redistributed - 
> this would be against the GPL. The formulation is however designed to 
> induce Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt...

Really? I've got an email here containing:

    "That's of course allowed, but we would prefer you avoid this, ..."

Re: and visual library once again

[Szymon Guz]

Simon Wright napisał(a):
> "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>I'm actually a big supporter of the GPL and look forward to the day
>>(5 to 100 years from now) when all (non-classified) computer
>>programs will be GPL'd or it's future equivalent.
> 
> 
> In the environment I work in, there would IMO be no problem; since the
> government agency that is purchasing the product requires full source
> delivery anyway!

sure, but for me the problem with GPL looks like this:

If I want to create a very good program I need to employee some 
programmers so I have costs. Of course I want to get the money back, so 
I want to sell the program many times to get enough money (ok I want to 
sell the licence or whatever, I had $200000 of costs and I sell the 
program for $200 per copy, so I have to sell at least 1000 copies to 
earn 0 on that). If I sell the program on the GPL licence client can 
sell the program cheaper than me many many times, so how can I get my 
money back (and how can I earn on the program).

regards
Szymon Guz

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

Szymon Guz wrote:
> sure, but for me the problem with GPL looks like this:
>
> If I want to create a very good program I need to employee some
> programmers so I have costs. ... If I sell the program on the GPL
> licence client can sell the program cheaper than me many many times,
> so how can I get my money back (and how can I earn on the program).

You need to arrange to get the money ahead of time. The way to do
this is to get prospective users of the program to put up the money
to fund your development. Then when the work is done, everyone gets
the program. GNAT itself is a perfect example of this.

Re: and visual library once again

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Bob Spooner wrote:
> The cost of _distribution_ is very low. The cost of production, that is
> development, of software, especially _good_ software, is high. Very few
> companies are willing to make the kind of investment it takes to produce
> good software. That's one of the reasons Ada isn't more widely used.

If we compare SW to HW, we find in HW that a design is created, prototyped, and 
one or more production exemplars are created by the designers. The item then 
goes into production, and the produced items are distributed.

In SW, a design is created and a production exemplar is created by the 
designers. The SW then goes into production, which is the process of burning and 
boxing CDs, packaging the SW for download from the net, or the like. So far, 
very similar to HW.

The cost of designing the SW and creating that production exemplar is high, but 
the cost of production is not. SW development is a design activity, not a 
production activity.

> Only if the development cost can be amortized over an infinite number of
> sales or licences or support contracts. Otherwise price does not equal
> marginal cost and the development cost is highly relevant.

This is of course true.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Monty Python's Flying Circus
22

Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

> > So 5 to 100 years from now programmers will be employees of
> > government or other large institutions/organizations?
>
> I would think that we don't have to wait.
> Isn't this already the case now?
    Perhaps they've been eliminated in your neighborhood, but here
(Silicon Valley) there are still some programmers working at small
start-ups.  Some species try to persevere instead of adapt.

Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

>What definition of "organization" are you using if you can say that Red
>Hat is a large organization but Microsoft isn't?
  Nobody said either of those things.

Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> said:
>You need to arrange to get the money ahead of time. The way to do
>this is to get prospective users of the program to put up the money
>to fund your development. Then when the work is done, everyone gets
>the program. GNAT itself is a perfect example of this.
   If I can get the funding, I'll work on creating for free release an
OS much better than Windows, a suite of software apps much better than
Office, and a seamless communication system much more user friendly than
the current VOIP systems.  Can I count on you putting up part of the money
to fund this development?

Re: and visual library once again

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 21 Oct 2005 13:47:02 -0700, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Szymon Guz wrote:
>> sure, but for me the problem with GPL looks like this:
>>
>> If I want to create a very good program I need to employee some
>> programmers so I have costs. ... If I sell the program on the GPL
>> licence client can sell the program cheaper than me many many times,
>> so how can I get my money back (and how can I earn on the program).
> 
> You need to arrange to get the money ahead of time. The way to do
> this is to get prospective users of the program to put up the money
> to fund your development. Then when the work is done, everyone gets
> the program. GNAT itself is a perfect example of this.

But the point is, let me reassert it:

I want to make some other people working for me, and sell the result of
their work as if it were mine. GPL makes it difficult.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: and visual library once again

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <ELednarllbH4TcTeRVn-hg@comcast.com>, tmoran@acm.org writes:
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> said:
>>You need to arrange to get the money ahead of time. The way to do
>>this is to get prospective users of the program to put up the money
>>to fund your development. Then when the work is done, everyone gets
>>the program. GNAT itself is a perfect example of this.
>    If I can get the funding, I'll work on creating for free release an
> OS much better than Windows, a suite of software apps much better than
> Office, and a seamless communication system much more user friendly than
> the current VOIP systems.  Can I count on you putting up part of the money
> to fund this development?

If it meets my needs, including:

	not being "Unix-like"
	allowing use of DECnet rather than IP
	Bell-Lapadula mandatory access controls with Biba extensions

By the way, I don't have much money to contribute, and the other folks
who are similarly situated have vastly different requirements.

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> But the point is, let me reassert it:
> I want to make some other people working for me, and sell the result of
> their work as if it were mine. GPL makes it difficult.

Why? The contract between you and your employees has nothing to do
with how you license the software they produce. When you hire your
employees, just have them sign the standard industry contract that
whatever they produce (whether only on company time or altogether
is one variation here) while employed by you is yours, and they
retain no rights to it.

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>    If I can get the funding, I'll work on creating for free release an
> OS much better than Windows, a suite of software apps much better than
> Office, and a seamless communication system much more user friendly than
> the current VOIP systems.  Can I count on you putting up part of the money
> to fund this development?

Of course not. Those are not projects with a realistic hope
of being funded, except by idiots. You will notice that such
projects have not been produced by proprietary companies
either - various attempts have all fallen by the wayside.

If you want to be funded, you will need smaller projects, in an
area where you have proven expertise as demonstrated by previous
successes, for people who have an immediate and urgent need for
the thing you will be making.

Again using GNAT as an example, the same team at NYU had already
produced a validated Ada interpreter using SETL.

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>     Perhaps they've been eliminated in your neighborhood

Yep. New York City. The financial industry gets 'em all.

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1423 bytes --]

>"Szymon Guz" <alpha@skynet.org.pl_WITHOUT> wrote in message 
> >news:djbids$1o1e$1@node3.news.atman.pl...
>Simon Wright napisa�(a):
>> "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'm actually a big supporter of the GPL and look forward to the day
>>>(5 to 100 years from now) when all (non-classified) computer
>>>programs will be GPL'd or it's future equivalent.
>>
>>
>> In the environment I work in, there would IMO be no problem; since the
>> government agency that is purchasing the product requires full source
>> delivery anyway!
>
>sure, but for me the problem with GPL looks like this:
>
>If I want to create a very good program I need to employee some programmers 
>so I have costs. Of course I want to get the money back, so I want to sell 
>the program many times to get enough money (ok I want to sell the licence 
>or whatever, I had $200000 of costs and I sell the program for $200 per 
>copy, so I have to sell at least 1000 copies to earn 0 on that). If I sell 
>the program on the GPL licence client can sell the program cheaper than me 
>many many times, so how can I get my money back (and how can I earn on the 
>program).

Don't sell software.  Sell software support.

Include a manual and subscription based support and your customers will get 
more value by obtaining the software from you.  It seems to be working well 
for AdaCore.

Steve
(The Duck)

>regards
>Szymon Guz 

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> You need to arrange to get the money ahead of time. The way to do
> this is to get prospective users of the program to put up the money
> to fund your development. Then when the work is done, everyone gets
> the program. GNAT itself is a perfect example of this.

GNAT would be a "perfect" example only if AdaCore were still respecting
the wishes of the people who put up the money (the DOD), who insisted
on the GMGPL for the runtime libraries of the GNAT compiler.

As it is, AdaCore has made a perfectly legal "move", but one which I
think disrespects the intentions of the origins of GNAT, and certainly
the intentions of the "venture capitalists" who gave them their start.

Steve

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

Steve Whalen wrote:
> GNAT would be a "perfect" example only if AdaCore were still respecting
> the wishes of the people who put up the money (the DOD), who insisted
> on the GMGPL for the runtime libraries of the GNAT compiler.

They received a contract for a project and they fulfilled it.
Whatever wishes may be involved are irrelevant. And actually,
the original contract was deliberately for less than the whole
of the Ada standard precisely to avoid damaging the business of
other Ada vendors. If anything, by releasing a GPL-only runtime,
AdaCore is honoring that original intent.

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

Bob Spooner wrote:
> "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129888684.681335.230450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Between 50 and 100 years from now there will be a massive deflationary
> > cycle as powerful computers combined with cheap electricity and
> > increasingly capable robots eliminate the cost of "labor" from the
> > economy.  Since the price performance of robots will begin to follow
> > that of the computers that drive them, all the basics (food, clothing,
> > shelter) will have their costs driven down toward zero.  At some point
> > the government will tax the robots and pay everyone $500 a month which
> > will be more than enough to live on.  You will be able to choose to
> > program, or to watch TV, or to garden, or to serve others, or do
> > nothing, just like in Star Trek <g>. Then programming will mostly be
> > done by people who do it because they love it, because nobody has to
> > work just to survive.
>
> This sounds a lot like the predictions of about 40 years ago that with
> automation, etc. the biggest problem we would have now would be what to do
> with all the extra spare time. And yet the average person is working more
> hours now.
>

40 years ago such predictions were pipe dreams based on hoped for
breakthroughs in various technologies.  That was before "Moore's law"
was understood, and before having several decades of increases in the
power and price performance of computers.  We now have significant
evidence that the increase in computing power and cost effectiveness is
on an exponential, not a linear curve into the future.

Even if we only assume a linear increase in the power of computing
available (doubling every 18 months or so) in a few decades, computers
will be easily be able to do much of the "work" humans do even
_without_ the kinds of breakthroughs in artificial intelligence that
were prerequisites for the predictions of 40 years ago.  I agree with
Marvin Minsky's thesis that we are NOT likely to get computers to be
significantly "smarter" by the use of artificial intelligence (from his
book of about 1971).

But the staggering amounts of computing power that will be readily
available very cheaply a few decades from now _will_ make it relatively
easy to automate tasks that are currently impractical (not by emulating
the way humans think, but by brute force).  Much the way the DARPA
challenge of having an autonomous vehicle drive itself over 100 miles
through rough desert terrain was solved: not by elegant software, but
by practical engineering and brute force computing. In the time-frames
I was referring to (50 to 100 years from now), the power of today's
most powerful weather simulation super computers will fit inside a
hollowed out grain of sand.

> The cost of _distribution_ is very low. The cost of production, that is
> development, of software, especially _good_ software, is high. Very few
> companies are willing to make the kind of investment it takes to produce
> good software. That's one of the reasons Ada isn't more widely used.
> > --
> >
> > "In an efficient market, price equals marginal cost. Marginal cost of
> > software: zero."
> >
> Only if the development cost can be amortized over an infinite number of
> sales or licences or support contracts. Otherwise price does not equal
> marginal cost and the development cost is highly relevant.
>
> Bob

But development cost is NOT production cost. The economics ARE
different.  Every kind of significant endeavor has high design and
development costs (i.e. building the first working production quality
prototype).  Only computer software has a production / distribution
cost that is for all practical purposes $0.  There has never been a
comparable phenomenon. That's the big difference over the long run.

50+ years from now the cost of design and development of
"infrastructure" software will be amortized over large populations in
the same way current infrastructure (like highways or the Internet) is
paid for.  Doesn't matter whether it's a "government" spreading the
development costs (many highways) or a company (the U.S. telecoms
companies for the Internet in the U.S.).

Steve

Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

> If you want to be funded, you will need smaller projects, in an
> area where you have proven expertise as demonstrated by previous
> successes, for people who have an immediate and urgent need for
> the thing you will be making.
By those criteria Christopher Columbus would never have been funded.
If that kind of funding was a requirement (since an entrepreneur
couldn't self-fund in the hopes of later profit), no technical genius
who wasn't also a masterful salesman would ever get off the ground.
That's kind of limiting to progress.

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> By those criteria Christopher Columbus would never have been funded.

If you can believe his Wikipedia entry, Columbus got his funding
based on erroneous estimates of the Earth's size, estimates which
were correctly disbelieved by contemporaneous experts. He was also
an experienced sailor, navigator, and trader by the time he got his
commission. And if there hadn't been a new continent in the way, his
entire expedition would have perished.

> no technical genius who wasn't also a masterful salesman would ever
 > get off the ground. That's kind of limiting to progress.

No. That simply means that such a technical genius should find a
masterful salesman with whom to team up. That's not exactly unheard
of.

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
> > GNAT would be a "perfect" example only if AdaCore were still respecting
> > the wishes of the people who put up the money (the DOD), who insisted
> > on the GMGPL for the runtime libraries of the GNAT compiler.
>
> They received a contract for a project and they fulfilled it.
> Whatever wishes may be involved are irrelevant. And actually,
> the original contract was deliberately for less than the whole
> of the Ada standard precisely to avoid damaging the business of
> other Ada vendors. If anything, by releasing a GPL-only runtime,
> AdaCore is honoring that original intent.

I agree that AdaCore fulfilled the contract and are free to do what
they want. I understand that the new Ada 2005 compiler can be
considered "freer" from the perspective of the software. However the
new Ada 2005 compiler is "less free" from the perspective of the _user_
of the software, since it cannot be used to produce proprietary, closed
source, non-GPL software.

I disagree that "they are honoring that original intent" since the
original intent to protect the other Ada vendors was accomplished by
the limited size of the investment made by the DOD. It was also a very
clear intent of both the DOD and the GNAT developers to have GNAT be an
Ada compiler capable of producing proprietary closed source programs.
An even more important "intent" of the GNAT project was to help
popularize Ada even though the DOD was dropping it's "Ada mandate".

I agree that "Whatever wishes may be involved are irrelevant.". They
are legally irrelevant. They are NOT irrelevant to the future of Ada as
a language.

AdaCore by it's actions is directly contradicting many statements made
by the AdaCore founders here on comp.lang.ada over the last 5 to 10
years.  Their statements (many quite impassioned) showed they
understood the power of having a free, high quality, up to date, easily
installed Ada compiler capable of producing proprietary software as a
means of proselytizing the Ada language. AdaCore at the time also
pointed out that since they had to package up the software for their
supported customers anyway, releasing the "public" versions was NOT an
issue of cost.

Since AdaCore hasn't explained _why_ they changed from GMGPL to GPL in
the runtime for their "free" compiler, they've created unnecessary FUD
about the Ada language. Whether they did it in an attempt to get more
$$$ or they are bowing to pressure from other Ada vendors, or exactly
why they did it, is also irrelevant.  But the change _does_ hurt the
Ada language, which may not be dead, but it sure isn't growing in
popularity outside of the universe of those who already know it's
value.  Helping to kill a dying language was NOT the DOD's intent when
it dropped the "Ada mandate" and created the GNAT project.

Steve

Re: and visual library once again

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 02:32:14 GMT, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> But the point is, let me reassert it:
>> I want to make some other people working for me, and sell the result of
>> their work as if it were mine. GPL makes it difficult.
> 
> Why? The contract between you and your employees has nothing to do
> with how you license the software they produce. When you hire your
> employees, just have them sign the standard industry contract that
> whatever they produce (whether only on company time or altogether
> is one variation here) while employed by you is yours, and they
> retain no rights to it.

OK, you and Dennis mean that employees should be excluded from GPL. It
might be possible, but it would mean exactly that GPL could not be applied
for trading/exchange between employer and employee. That's a systematic
problem.

To have it really working it should function in all cases including ones
when parties have different weights. So far, both GPL and *software
selling* perform poorly. Software quality fails to keep pace with growing
complexity...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: and visual library once again

[Hyman Rosen]

Steve Whalen wrote:
> But the change _does_ hurt the Ada language, which may not be dead,
 > but it sure isn't growing in popularity outside of the universe of
 > those who already know it's value.

Perhaps that's because most of the programmers who are using Ada use
it to create proprietary programs. That means that the users of those
programs don't know or care what in language they're written, because
they never see the sources. Now that programs compiled by GNAT GPL must
be licensed under the GPL if they're to be distributed, perhaps those
users will begin using Ada themselves once they see the beauty of the
Ada code which is being delivered to them.

Anyway, if someone feels really strongly about this, then he or she can
fork the GMGPL version. That happened with gcc and with X Window, so
there's no reason it can't happen here.

Re: and visual library once again

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Steve Whalen wrote:

> Even if we only assume a linear increase in the power of computing
> available (doubling every 18 months or so) in a few decades, computers

Doubling every 18 months is not a linear increase.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I unclog my nose towards you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
11

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
>
> > Even if we only assume a linear increase in the power of computing
> > available (doubling every 18 months or so) in a few decades, computers
>
> Doubling every 18 months is not a linear increase.

Quite right. I was trying to keep a post that was already too long from
getting longer. Obviously I meant that we are seeing a rate of growth
in computing performance that when plotted on an exponential graph, is
not a straight line, but an accelerating curve. My point is that even
ignoring the growth in the rate of growth, we will have extraordinarily
powerful computers available for very little money 50 to 100 years from
now.

Since you chose to pick on my "linear increase", I take it you disagree
with my basic premise that we will have stunningly powerful and
inexpensive computers available 50 to 100 years from now?

Steve

Re: and visual library once again

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

Steve Whalen wrote:
> Quite right. I was trying to keep a post that was already too long from
> getting longer. Obviously I meant that we are seeing a rate of growth
> in computing performance that when plotted on an exponential graph, is
> not a straight line, but an accelerating curve.

I guess I misread it.

> Since you chose to pick on my "linear increase", I take it you disagree
> with my basic premise that we will have stunningly powerful and
> inexpensive computers available 50 to 100 years from now?

Not at all. With nanotechnology we should have something the same volume as a 
sheet of bond paper that contains billions of simple processors.

The main issue is that we'll be dealing in massive parallelism, so we need 
people comfortable with it, and a language with safe, high-level concurrency 
features.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I spun around, and there I was, face to face with a
six-year-old kid. Well, I just threw my guns down and
walked away. Little bastard shot me in the ass."
Blazing Saddles
40

Re: and visual library once again

[Bob Spooner]

"Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130049078.633311.55000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>  <snip>  Much the way the DARPA
> challenge of having an autonomous vehicle drive itself over 100 miles
> through rough desert terrain was solved: not by elegant software, but
> by practical engineering and brute force computing. In the time-frames
> I was referring to (50 to 100 years from now), the power of today's
> most powerful weather simulation super computers will fit inside a
> hollowed out grain of sand.
>
I think you would be surprised at the elegance of some of the artificial
intelligence techniques that are used. Where I work, we do research on and
with autonomous vehicles. The brute force approach simply doesn't work.

Bob

Re: and visual library once again

[Bob Spooner]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129927622.825849.56200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You need to arrange to get the money ahead of time. The way to do
> this is to get prospective users of the program to put up the money
> to fund your development. Then when the work is done, everyone gets
> the program. GNAT itself is a perfect example of this.
>
Whenever I've done that, the company that paid for the development insisted
on ownership of the software for themselves.

Bob

Re: and visual library once again

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

Bob Spooner a �crit :
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129927622.825849.56200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>You need to arrange to get the money ahead of time. The way to do
>>this is to get prospective users of the program to put up the money
>>to fund your development. Then when the work is done, everyone gets
>>the program. GNAT itself is a perfect example of this.
>>
> 
> Whenever I've done that, the company that paid for the development insisted
> on ownership of the software for themselves.
> 
AdaControl is a counter-example. Initial development paid for by 
Eurocontrol, then released as free software with shared ownership 
between Eurocontrol and Adalog.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: and visual library once again

[Steve Whalen]

Bob Spooner wrote:
> "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1130049078.633311.55000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >  <snip>  Much the way the DARPA
> > challenge of having an autonomous vehicle drive itself over 100 miles
> > through rough desert terrain was solved: not by elegant software, but
> > by practical engineering and brute force computing. In the time-frames
> > I was referring to (50 to 100 years from now), the power of today's
> > most powerful weather simulation super computers will fit inside a
> > hollowed out grain of sand.
> >
> I think you would be surprised at the elegance of some of the artificial
> intelligence techniques that are used. Where I work, we do research on and
> with autonomous vehicles. The brute force approach simply doesn't work.
>
> Bob

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to denigrate or downplay the work being done
in the field (or the work that was done for the DARPA challenge). I'm
not at all surprised that there is some very elegant work in AI being
done for autonomous vehicles.

Doing the kind of hard work you do was considered unnecessary and
"brute force" by many AI pundits of the 1960's who were going to
(within 10 years!) emulate the human brain in a computer and then just
have the computer brain learn do any task a human could do.  Marvin
Minsky's book I referred to was basically saying that was b.s. and
wasn't going to happen (which I agree with, then and now).

About every 10 years or so someone from the AI community says something
similar...  That's the crowd I was thinking of, to whom anything other
than putting a human brain in a computer and letting it figure out how
do something, is "brute force"(I'm oversimplifying again: it was quite
a battle for $$ and research grants and reputation and ego: thankfully
that never happens any more <g>).

We may get closer to being able to emulate a human brain in a hardware
computer in 100 years, but I suspect that most if not all of the
"useful" AI work that will power the robots and such I was talking
about, will come from the kind of work you do. I still think we should
continue to learn from the brain, but I think trying to program a
hardware computer to emulate how a human brain works isn't going to
magically make a "smart" computer.

I just hope Ada (or it's successor) is still around in an hundred years
and being used for the more critical components of the robots we
entrust our life to. Ironically the last time I did any serious
robotics about 10+ years ago, Forth was my language of choice for the
task at hand due to memory and hardware constraints. I guess that's a
part of the point I was trying to make: "hardware constraints" are
beginning to disappear, and will have disappeared completely in 100
years.

Steve

Re: and visual library once again

[Bob Spooner]

"Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130224998.944468.133100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bob Spooner wrote:
> > "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1130049078.633311.55000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >  <snip>  Much the way the DARPA
> > > challenge of having an autonomous vehicle drive itself over 100 miles
> > > through rough desert terrain was solved: not by elegant software, but
> > > by practical engineering and brute force computing. In the time-frames
> > > I was referring to (50 to 100 years from now), the power of today's
> > > most powerful weather simulation super computers will fit inside a
> > > hollowed out grain of sand.
> > >
> > I think you would be surprised at the elegance of some of the artificial
> > intelligence techniques that are used. Where I work, we do research on
and
> > with autonomous vehicles. The brute force approach simply doesn't work.
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to denigrate or downplay the work being done
> in the field (or the work that was done for the DARPA challenge). I'm
> not at all surprised that there is some very elegant work in AI being
> done for autonomous vehicles.
>
> Doing the kind of hard work you do was considered unnecessary and
> "brute force" by many AI pundits of the 1960's who were going to
> (within 10 years!) emulate the human brain in a computer and then just
> have the computer brain learn do any task a human could do.  Marvin
> Minsky's book I referred to was basically saying that was b.s. and
> wasn't going to happen (which I agree with, then and now).
>
> About every 10 years or so someone from the AI community says something
> similar...  That's the crowd I was thinking of, to whom anything other
> than putting a human brain in a computer and letting it figure out how
> do something, is "brute force"(I'm oversimplifying again: it was quite
> a battle for $$ and research grants and reputation and ego: thankfully
> that never happens any more <g>).
>
> We may get closer to being able to emulate a human brain in a hardware
> computer in 100 years, but I suspect that most if not all of the
> "useful" AI work that will power the robots and such I was talking
> about, will come from the kind of work you do. I still think we should
> continue to learn from the brain, but I think trying to program a
> hardware computer to emulate how a human brain works isn't going to
> magically make a "smart" computer.
>
> I just hope Ada (or it's successor) is still around in an hundred years
> and being used for the more critical components of the robots we
> entrust our life to. Ironically the last time I did any serious
> robotics about 10+ years ago, Forth was my language of choice for the
> task at hand due to memory and hardware constraints. I guess that's a
> part of the point I was trying to make: "hardware constraints" are
> beginning to disappear, and will have disappeared completely in 100
> years.
>
> Steve
>

Well, I don't think that hardware constraints will ever completely
disappear. That's because of what I call "Spooner's law of computing" which
says that computing power generates the need for more computing power.

Bob

Re: and visual library once again

[Björn Persson]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>>What definition of "organization" are you using if you can say that Red
>>Hat is a large organization but Microsoft isn't?
> 
>   Nobody said either of those things.

I'll explain my reasoning. You wrote the following:

>   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
> the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
> organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.

You divided producers of software into two categories: category A, "the 
market", and category B, "government or other organizations not guided 
by the market". You also spoke of programs that are "public goods". As 
you wrote that in response to Steve's words about GPL'd programs, you 
obviously meant "public goods" to mean free software. You claimed that 
category A will not supply free software, that only category B will pay 
programmers to produce free software.

Red Hat is a company that pays programmers to produce free software, so 
by that criterion it fits in category B. It can clearly not be in 
category A, because supplying free software is the heart of its 
business. As Red Hat isn't a government agency I have to conclude that 
it's an "other organization not guided by the market".

As an example from category A, someone who produces software but not 
free software, I chose Microsoft.

So, surprised that Red Hat isn't part of the market and knowing that 
there are several differences between Red Hat and Microsoft, I ask: 
Which difference causes Red Hat to be classified as an "organization not 
guided by the market" and Microsoft as part of "the market", and what 
definitions of "organization" and "market" make that possible?

Or would you place Microsoft in category B also, and if so, will you 
please mention an example from category A?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: and visual library once again

[Björn Persson]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>>Certainly you can.  Harper & Row does that all the time after
>>they buy a book from the author.
> 
> They don't buy a book. They buy the right to make copies, which
> otherwise is restricted to the copyright holder. In many cases
> the contract specifies circumstances under which the publisher
> will lose that right and it will revert back to the author.
> 
>>Perhaps you are thinking of "sell a copy of a book".
> 
> No. When I go to a bookstore and make a purchase, no one makes a
> copy of a book. There are piles and cases of books available, and
> I pick one up and buy it.

This is what happens when we take words like "buy" (or "steal") that 
apply to material objects, and try to use them on information such as 
software or literature. The book example makes the confusion extra 
visible because "book" can denote both a material object, a bound sheaf 
of pages, and a piece of information, a literary work.

Everybody knows what buying a material book means. What it means to buy 
a literary work is a lot less clear.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

> >   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
> ...
> You also spoke of programs that are "public goods". As
> you wrote that in response to Steve's words about GPL'd programs, you
> obviously meant "public goods" to mean free software.
    "Public goods" is a technical economics term, not a reference
to GPL or "Free software".  From "Principles of Economics" by Ruffin and
Gregory: "Public goods are characterized by nonrival consumption and
nonexclusion."  My use of a program does not detract from your ability
to use it (nonrivalrous), and it is relatively difficult to exclude
"free riders" from use of the program without paying for it
(nonexclusion).

Re: and visual library once again

[Björn Persson]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>     "Public goods" is a technical economics term, not a reference
> to GPL or "Free software".

I don't care whether it's a technical economics term or a martian 
politics term. You used it about GPL'd programs.

I still want to know how Red Hat isn't part of the market. Right now 
your economic theory resembles a map that disagrees with the terrain. I 
still hope to get an enlightening explanation, but if I don't get one 
I'm likely to trust reality and conclude that the map is wrong.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

> >   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
> > the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
> > organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.

> >     "Public goods" is a technical economics term, not a reference
> > to GPL or "Free software".

> I don't care whether it's a technical economics term or a martian
> politics term. You used it about GPL'd programs.
   Actually, I didn't use it about GPL'd programs.  Note that the original
sentence did not mention GPL, but did say "economists point out",
which was intended to convey the information that the following quoted
phrase was one that economists use, eg, a technical (though found in any
introductory econ textbook) economics term.  As you said about words in
another thread
>This is what happens when we take words like "buy" (or "steal") that
>apply to material objects, and try to use them on information such as
  It's important to try to clarify the particular meaning of a word
or phrase.  If someone understands it to have a different meaning,
much heat and little light will ensue.

> I still want to know how Red Hat isn't part of the market.
  I see various Red Hat products listed in Yahoo Shopping, and you
tell me they pay their in-house programmers, so they sound to me
like part of the market.

Re: and visual library once again

[Björn Persson]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>>>    "Public goods" is a technical economics term, not a reference
>>>to GPL or "Free software".
> 
>>I don't care whether it's a technical economics term or a martian
>>politics term. You used it about GPL'd programs.
> 
>    Actually, I didn't use it about GPL'd programs.

You used it to draw a conclusion, like so:

Steve: In 5 to 100 years all programs will be GPL'd.
economists: Only [category B] will pay programmers to produce public 
goods programs.
Tom: So in 5 to 100 years programmers will be employees of [category B]?
(Statements condensed for clarity.)

There's a hidden assumption in that argument, namely that "GPL'd" is a 
subset of "public goods". If GPL'd programs aren't public goods, then 
your conclusion about who will pay programmers is invalid.

> As you said about words in another thread
> 
>>This is what happens when we take words like "buy" (or "steal") that
>>apply to material objects, and try to use them on information such as

The thought has indeed crossed my mind that maybe the term "public 
goods", or the economic theory you referenced, is only relevant to 
material goods.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

OT: was Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

> Steve: In 5 to 100 years all programs will be GPL'd.
> economists: Only [category B] will pay programmers to produce public
> goods programs.
> Tom: So in 5 to 100 years programmers will be employees of [category B]?
> (Statements condensed for clarity.)
   No.  Not "only [category B] will pay programmers so all programmers will
be employed by [category B]" but rather:
>>   The economists point out that to the extent programs are "public goods"
>> the market will undersupply them, leaving it to government or other
>> organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers.

> There's a hidden assumption in that argument, namely that "GPL'd" is a
> subset of "public goods". If GPL'd programs aren't public goods, then
> your conclusion about who will pay programmers is invalid.
   To not be a "Public Good", it would have to either be exclusive - easy
to control who gets a copy, or rivalrous - if you have it, it will be less
valuable to me (a CIA cryptography program for instance).  Offhand I can't
think of an example of GPLing such a program.  Further, I said "the market
will undersupply", not "the market will supply zero, so only non-market
orgs will supply".

   Note, BTW, that Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts are an attempt to
raise exclusiveness, so their programs are not "Public Goods".

> The thought has indeed crossed my mind that maybe the term "public
> goods", or the economic theory you referenced, is only relevant to
> material goods.
   The classic example of a "public good" is national defense.  If
I get more, it doesn't mean you get less so it's nonrivalrous, and
it's very difficult to exclude you from the benefit provided to me.
Hardly a "material good".
  I suggest spending some time with a good intro econ textbook.

Re: OT: was Re: and visual library once again

[Björn Persson]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> 
>>There's a hidden assumption in that argument, namely that "GPL'd" is a
>>subset of "public goods". If GPL'd programs aren't public goods, then
>>your conclusion about who will pay programmers is invalid.
> 
>    To not be a "Public Good", it would have to either be exclusive - easy
> to control who gets a copy, or rivalrous - if you have it, it will be less
> valuable to me (a CIA cryptography program for instance).  Offhand I can't
> think of an example of GPLing such a program.

But I'm sure you *can* think of some examples of GPL'd programs, and 
those will then have to fall into the "public goods" category. Hence, by 
your own reasoning, GPL'd programs *are* (a subset of) public goods, 
which is perfectly consistent with your calling Steve's GPL'd programs 
public goods.

> Further, I said "the market
> will undersupply", not "the market will supply zero, so only non-market
> orgs will supply".

True, but the sentence continued "leaving it to government or other 
organizations not guided by the market to pay programmers." That sounds 
like the market would not pay programmers to any significant extent.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: OT: was Re: and visual library once again

[tmoran]

not(Public Goods) implies not(GPL)     (a)
is logically equivalent to
(GPL) implies (Public Goods)           (b)
so if (a) is true, ie there are no counterexamples, then (b) is true

Re: OT: was Re: and visual library once again

[Björn Persson]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> not(Public Goods) implies not(GPL)     (a)
> is logically equivalent to
> (GPL) implies (Public Goods)           (b)
> so if (a) is true, ie there are no counterexamples, then (b) is true

Precisely, and you say you can't think of any counterexamples. Why, 
then, did you claim that when you wrote "public goods" in your response 
to Steve's words about GPL'd programs, you did not use the term about 
GPL'd programs? What other, public goods but non-GPL'd, programs did you 
talk about?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu