[M3devel] licensing (gcc patches)

[hendrik at topoi.pooq.com]

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 09:32:30AM +0200, Olaf Wagner wrote:
> Quoting hendrik at topoi.pooq.com:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 04:20:01PM +0000, Jay K wrote:
>>>
>>> licensing
>>>
>>> "for the record"
>>> I don't necessarily want to discuss it..
>>>
>>>
>>> It has been speculated here that
>>> our gcc patches weren't acceptable
>>> because our license is more restrictive than GPL.
>>>
>>> I believe it is more like the opposite.
>>> Our patches not accepted because our license is /less/ restrictive.
>>
>> The restriction I see in the modula 3 license is everyone dealing in
>> Modula 3 code has to allow SRC to do anything they want to any of it.
>> This 'requirement to allow' is a restriction that doesn't apply to GPL,
>> so in that sense we're more restrictive.
>>
>> In pretty well all other ways, we're less restrictive.
>
> The M3 licence allows free use and distribution of the code in source
> and binary format. There is no restriction that source must be provided
> if it is changed or sold or just used as a service by anyone, i.e. it is
> no viral license.
>
> The only provision is that _if_ patches are returned to the copyright owner
> (which can be DEC, Critical Mass, or others), they may use them for any
> purpose they wish without any restriction, too.
>
> Actually, both DEC and Critical Mass won't (any more). At least as far
> as I can see...
>
>>>  To most of the code. Not to the patch or files added to gcc.
>>>  They can't really be.
>>
>> Of course any code we *add* at this point can be dual-licensed, letting
>> people who get it use one license, or the other, or both, at their
>> option.
>
> Code linked with gcc must be under GPL. That's why DEC went to all
> this fuss with two-phase compilation using two processes. Otherwise all
> the M3 compiler code would need to be distributed as source by anyone
> who uses it, too.

But code can be released under more than one licence, the SRC license 
*and* the GPL, for example.  Of course, that would require the copyright 
holders to do that.

> GPL is still pretty much a no-go for commercial use.
>
> In fact that's the reason why the FSF never accepted the M3 extensions
> for gcc; they didn't approve of the license `workaround'.

So the issue here is not wiether the M3 extensions to gcc are 
GPL'd, butwhether the FSF is willing to accept them into their 
gcc distribution?

-- hendrik.