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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a56efa2f9819865e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s01.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Jeff C r e e.m" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <2004122019244375249%david@bottoncom> <3011519.fW8pYvrWey@linux1.krischik.com> Subject: Re: asharp on linux X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s01 1103631391 24.147.74.171 (Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:16:31 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:16:31 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:16:31 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7123 Date: 2004-12-21T12:16:31+00:00 List-Id: "u_int32_t" 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.