[M3devel] m2tom3

[vintagecoder at aol.com]

> Would it be useful to dual-licence new code under the LGPL(2 or later) on
> the remote chance that other parts of Modula 3 might someday also be so
> licenced.  Or, for that matter, that someone might want to translate it
> to another language, by hand or otherwise?  That would then be a derived
> work, also LGPL-able. 

The Critical Mass license is perfectly fine. What is the sick fascination
with GPL? Why can't people just leave things alone and not try to force
other people to live according to their rules. LGPL is just a slippery
slope.

> Just trying to reduce future barriers to interoperation.

Really? The GPL never reduced any barriers. It is *all about* barriers.

You truly want to reduce future barriers? Then public-domain your code or
use a BSD or MIT license. Or just use the Critical Mass license and stop
trying to turn everything into Linux.