|[3 earlier articles]|
|Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work email@example.com (1994-03-16)|
|Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-03-22)|
|Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work email@example.com (1994-03-23)|
|Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-03-24)|
|Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work email@example.com (1994-03-25)|
|Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-03-29)|
|Re: On Legacy Applications and Previous Work email@example.com (1994-04-04)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Leonard)|
|Keywords:||tools, design, comment|
|Organization:||Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL|
|Date:||Mon, 4 Apr 1994 14:22:25 GMT|
: For instance, suppose you're working on a government contract,
: similar to contracts you've worked on before and will likely work on
: again. You see a potential for a reusable component, but it is going to
: take additional effort to make it reusable. You will find it very
: difficult to charge the government for that, and then use the software on
: other government programs.
email@example.com (Mike Boucher) writes:
> It also depends on the contract type. On a fixed-price contract, having
> access to a body of reusable code gives you an advantage over those who
> lack the same infrastructure.
The point I was making is that you can't *develop* reusable code under
government contract, because the government can legitimately claim that it
(the government) paid for it and therefore you don't have the right to
resell it, even on another government contract! Silly, but there you are.
Harris Computer Systems Division
2101 W. Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
[This is all true, but it no longer has much to do with compilers so I'm
tying off this thread. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.