[M3devel] m2tom3

[Hendrik Boom]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:19:57PM +0000, vintagecoder at aol.com wrote:
> > 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?

Just that a lot of free software *is* released inder the GPL, and it 
would be convenient to be compatible.

> 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.

It's about limiting one's freedom to limit others' freedom.  And that 
is a barrrier, right.  But the way to bypass the barrier is to release 
code under multiple licences, the GPL or LGPL together with whatever 
licence you prefer.  Potential users can then choose whichever licence 
suits them.
> 
> You truly want to reduce future barriers? Then public-domain your code or
> use a BSD or MIT license.

Those licences would do, yes.  I suspect they're compatible with both 
the SRC licence (which the CM licence is based on) and GPL (but can 
anyone confirm that?).

> Or just use the Critical Mass license and stop
> trying to turn everything into Linux.

It's actually on Windows that it's a particular problem.  It's usual to 
distribute binaries there.  Most potential Windows users don't have 
their own software development tools and can only use prelinked 
binaries.

It's on Posix systems such as Linux that we have less of a problem, 
because they usually come with adequate development tools.

-- hendrik