[M3devel] licences, again

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi:
thanks for the message. 
Again I meant, that surely we could work out this by recording all libm3 libraries suddenly and then make the all library LGPL (as suggested by Richard Stallman) or whatever the Folks want. So, I guess the best approach is given that the DEC-SRC report declares Modula-3 free use and implement as stated there:
ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/dec/SRC/research-reports/SRC-052.pdf

"The right to implement or use the Modula-3 language is unrestricted"
Therefore as some libm3 INTERFACEs are part of that Language Definition as some in m3core (which should be all in m3core or in libm3 but not in both IMHO) we could code MODULEs an license them in again whatever folks want (or even on several license but carefully, as DEC-SRC did:

ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/dec/SRC/hypertext/Modula-3/copyright.html

ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/dec/SRC/hypertext/Modula-3/commercial.html

ftp://ftp.hpl.hp.com/pub/dec/SRC/hypertext/Modula-3/non_commercial.html

But I think they are all exactly the same document, so clearly there is was ? outdated and error-prone documentation (the tittle is wrong anyway in the commercial.html file), 

BTW Elego has a broken link:

http://modula3.elegosoft.com/cm3/doc/reference/license.html

in
http://modula3.elegosoft.com/rsrc/digital-license.html

Finally the history tells they "recreated" the Commercial license, I guess this was related to the fact that Pine Creek Software left Modula-3 Business somewhere in the 1993 or so as I recall. So that could be the effect of that.

Anyway the new license docs seem like '94 so would be good to see what is the status of the current license, and that's the reason RMS said this was not good for FSF, since I think they were talking about this before '94

Naturally someone should be able to tell what the heck is this all about, first non-commercial license, the first commercial one and the newest. There is a tool the did in DEC-SRC, we could have to look for that:
http://www.lim.nl/monitor/hector.html

p 22 see:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/SRC-RR-92.pdf

Thanks in advance

--- El jue, 24/11/11, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> escribió:

> De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] licences, again
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre, 2011 17:13
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:08:55PM
> +0000, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. wrote:
> > Hi all:
> > if one were to rework MODULES INTERFACEs IMHO yes,
> would be useful, anyway, that should make no harm other's
> code (when appropitely veryfied at elast in ESC/Modula-3),
> when developing enough of libm3.  A Short term could be
> m3core RT INTERFACES as they developed as a standard
> Modula-3, which they declare "free to use and implement". I
> however don't know about other's companies codes, since they
> could offer just that for their purposes, but that's less
> central of the issue. For instance linking other FOSS could
> be approved by that change in order to break down even
> further dependence.
> 
> I can't say I really understand this paragraph.
> 
> > Inthe other side, DEC-SRC licence is pretty liberal,
> so it could be thought  as GPL-compatible, which means
> that the same license is able to cope with the FOSS
> definitions, even that of FSF.
> 
> Certainly, I'd like it to be compatible with GPL.
> 
> But I've been told that the FSF considers the DEC-SRC
> licence 
> incompatible with the GPL.
> 
> -- hendrik
>