[M3devel] m2tom3

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
I knew that for instance OpenWatcom or Watcom by that time had written a piece of code with resemblance of Modula-3 I guess NT implementation so I guess as I recall I saw the DEC-SRC Copyright license for commercial product there but I can't get into it, I would need time to dig their sources if there is any still that has that license, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Watcom

See dates match exactly before 1994 license change

http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/64242/implementingcvs.pdf

There is controversy with Debian and Fedora legal teams, which I don't care more than OpenWatcom compiler had Modula-3 based code in their time, so if they got that before 94 (in 93) I guess this is the the way to go to understand the legalese, or say that DEC granted its license in other licenses which is sort of the idea in the GPL case even if it is not adjusted to it. IF FSF wants to ask for their license I don't see any reason for preventing asking that for.

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] m2tom3
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: jueves, 24 de noviembre, 2011 17:24
> 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
> 
>