Re: Software Economics was RE: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board?

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.1030114442.9877.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...

> However, I am totally
> against anything that would decrease the value of intellectual property.

Bob Leif often writes bizarre things, but this thread is pretty off
the
wall even by that criterion.

First point, ACT is definitely in favor of maximizing the value of its
property. A company the size of ours (Ada Core and ACT/Europe between
them have over 40 full time employees) needs a considerable level of
income to support our activities and the ongoing development of GNAT
and its surrouding tools. 

Second point, the only difference between Microsoft and ACT is the
license
we use. We both sell licensed copyrighted software.

We use the GPL as our license because we think it maximizes the value
of
the product to our customers. We think restrictive licenses such as
those
used by Microsoft (and presumably by Bob Leif if in fact he is in the
business of selling software -- that's not clear to me) are bad
business because they
don't provide the customers with what they need.

We think it's good business to provide the customers what they need.

And the result of providing customers what they need is that we
prosper. So
we are using the GPL *because* it allows us to support our activities.

BL makes the absurd statement that GNAT is a monopoly. This shows a
level of
unawareness of the market that is truly staggering. In fact there is
fierce
competition in the Ada market, as anyone who is in fact involved in
the market
as a vendor or a procurer of Ada products knows perfectly well.

And that's the last you will here from me in this thread, since I
can't imagine
it going in a sensible direction.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies