[M3devel] m2tom3

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
a perfect example of compatibility is the DEC-SRC SRCCollector Interface inter with GNU C Boehm's Collector compatible interface:
http://opensource.apple.com/source/gcc/gcc-5493/boehm-gc/doc/README.macros

And that happened a long time before [1] DEC-SRC closing so they knew at least that it could be possible to compile (and inferring types)/link to interchange both collectors (fully capable and enough compatible interfaces to make GC-safe in both DEC-SRC Modula-3 and GNU C languages, where is the counterexample for what you say) flawlessly say in any environment.

Thanks in advance

[1] H.-J. Boehm and Z. Shao, “Inferring Type Maps during Garbage Collection,” IN OOPSLA ’93 WORKSHOP ON MEMORY MANAGEMENT AND GARBAGE COLLECTION, 1993.


--- El mié, 23/11/11, vintagecoder at aol.com <vintagecoder at aol.com> escribió:

> De: vintagecoder at aol.com <vintagecoder at aol.com>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] m2tom3
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: miércoles, 23 de noviembre, 2011 11:19
> > 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.
>