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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7bcba1db9ed24fa7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-11 10:46:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <67F27.14089$Kf3.151364@www.newsranger.com> <5ee5b646.0107101433.fedfed8@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0107110830.1a134d7e@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Contributing patches to GPL Ada projects (was: Is Ada dead?) Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:45:02 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:45:02 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9813 Date: 2001-07-11T17:45:02+00:00 List-Id: In article <5ee5b646.0107110830.1a134d7e@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar says... > >Ted Dennison wrote in message news:... >> (I put quotes around "proprietary", because there is a very >> large class of users, my present employer included, who don't really >> distribute their sources, but prefer to keep their options open.) > >Well the owner of the copyright on an object always has open options, >but what I mean by proprietary here is precisely that neither the >sources nor the object are Free Software or Open Source in the >technical sense of either term, and it sounds like your present >employer is in this camp, so the term proprietary seems quite >appropriate. Sure, your employer may change their minds on this Well, I suppose that's true in the sense that my present employer isn't going to distribute the software in question (under any license whatsoever) to anyone who isn't a copyright holder (eg: ourselves or the US Government). But I don't think you want to define "proprietary" use that way, as it would almost certianly include ACT as well! ps. Its a moot issue anyway, as we aren't delivering *any* software to anyone, copyright holder or no, compiled with Gnat. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that we were, but its false. We are using the GreenHills compiler at the moment. My present interest in Gnat is entirely for my own Free Software projects, and possible future jobs (for which I'd think we certianly would require paid support). --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com