<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(42, 42, 42); "><pre style="line-height: 17px; white-space: normal; "> > Of course any code we *add* at this point can be dual-licensed, letting <br style="line-height: 17px; "></pre></span><div><br></div>I find "dual license" confusing.<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I like the BSD way, esp. OpenBSD way.</div><div>Besides being "liberal", they also significantly favor "simplicity".</div><div> Simple, short, clear, and also widely used. I'm talking about the license, not the code.</div><div>That is, if you come up with a new license, and claim it is liberal, but it takes too much</div><div>time/effort/money/lawyer to read and interpret, then they reject it.</div><div>They reject for example Apache 2.x. Thus they stick with Apache 1.x.</div><div>I kind of wish they wouldn't stick with Apache 1.x, it seems "dangerous" to linger</div><div>back on "old" versions, but I understand the reason.</div><div>I don't know if they stuck with gcc 3.x to avoid bloat or to avoid GPL 3.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't think we have a choice in the licensing of what we add, parse.c in particular.</div><div>I suspect parts of it are copied from the GPL gcc C front end.</div><div>That is ok.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> - Jay<br><br><br>> Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 16:04:18 -0400<br>> From: hendrik@topoi.pooq.com<br>> To: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] licensing (gcc patches)<br>> <br>> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 04:20:01PM +0000, Jay K wrote:<br>> > <br>> > licensing<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > "for the record"<br>> > I don't necessarily want to discuss it..<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > It has been speculated here that<br>> > our gcc patches weren't acceptable<br>> > because our license is more restrictive than GPL.<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > I believe it is more like the opposite.<br>> > Our patches not accepted because our license is /less/ restrictive.<br>> <br>> The restriction I see in the modula 3 license is everyone dealing in <br>> Modula 3 code has to allow SRC to do anything they want to any of it. <br>> This 'requirement to allow' is a restriction that doesn't apply to GPL, <br>> so in that sense we're more restrictive.<br>> <br>> In pretty well all other ways, we're less restrictive.<br>> <br>> > To most of the code. Not to the patch or files added to gcc.<br>> > They can't really be.<br>> <br>> Of course any code we *add* at this point can be dual-licensed, letting <br>> people who get it use one license, or the other, or both, at their <br>> option.<br>> <br>> -- hendrik<br></div> </body>
</html>