comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jeff C r e e.m" <jcreem@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: asharp on linux
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:16:31 GMT
Date: 2004-12-21T12:16:31+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <zuUxd.266698$HA.141658@attbi_s01> (raw)
In-Reply-To: pan.2004.12.21.10.45.28.824419@whocares.com


"u_int32_t" <u_int32_t@whocares.com> wrote in message 
news:pan.2004.12.21.10.45.28.824419@whocares.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:21:08 +0100, Martin Krischik wrote:
>
>> You mean a cvs snapshot won't do?
>
> Working on it
>
>> Well, for AdaCore Open Source is just that - Open Source - and not Open
>> Binaries or Open Distribution.
>
> Nothing stops their customers from redistributing it except they probably
> have a reverse "discount" for those who choose to distribute it. heh.

I know this was mean to be a little funny (and perhaps meant to be a little 
true) but in my experience the
often repeated claim that ACT will "come down on" a customer that 
re-distributes source is urban folklore.

I have been (though not currently) an ACT customer in the past and never 
received warnings/hints or any other
"feeling" that re-distribution of source was frowned upon.

Also, a year ago or so when ACT used to have a separate CVS visible at the 
libre site I pulled out a version of GNAT 5.01
(just the Ada part) and built it against a GCC core to produce something 
close to a public version of 5.01.

I did get an email from ACT because they (reasonable) wanted me to change 
some constants so the suite did not report
GNAT Pro in the name (trademark/branding issues) but there was no tone of 
general dissaproval for what I had done (of course they soon pulled the
separate CVS from the public view but that was also right around the time 
when the FSF gcc really started getting stable).

I DID get 5 or 6 emails from non ACT people who were horrified that I would 
do such a thing because it was not an official ACT public release and I had 
the
nerve to maintain 5.01 in the title (though I also added jmc and a date code 
to the version string and made the RPM install in a non-standard jmc 
location to further prevent confusion).

What probably stops most customers from redistributing source is that 
employees do not want to anger their employers by "stealing" software from 
work.
Sure that is not what would actually be happening but who really wants to 
take the chance.






  reply	other threads:[~2004-12-21 12:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-12-20 21:12 asharp on linux u_int32_t
2004-12-21  0:24 ` David Botton
2004-12-21  0:30   ` u_int32_t
2004-12-21  1:18     ` u_int32_t
2004-12-21  3:22   ` u_int32_t
2004-12-21  8:21     ` Martin Krischik
2004-12-21 10:45       ` u_int32_t
2004-12-21 12:16         ` Jeff C r e e.m [this message]
2004-12-21 13:38         ` Martin Krischik
2004-12-21 16:01           ` Martin Dowie
2004-12-21 23:59             ` Jeff C r e e.m
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox