Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.
dabenavidesd at yahoo.es
Fri Nov 25 04:28:22 CET 2011
in fact i think MS has the anti-free software parade creating cells of users in Universities, because they see how dramatically Java ad many others like GNU and Linux and all projects are just sweeping them (sorry if the words sound strong but what it feels is like that) as much they sweep in the industry, well most of times, say 90%.
That's why they tell the history of their concern of Copyrights, which somehow is a FSF concern too if that was the case with the Modula-3 gnu based tools I see (here MS uses the naive terms Author's rights), so the idea behind this is they feel "bad" if the copy proprietary software is shared and so the rest is history, bu the main threat could not been even that but the actual fact that in the "Cloud", or virtual networked environments we will need to find a way of obviating or bypass this regulations, since is useless there, sicne it will be bypassed anyway, even if you go today to a video site store you get music that would be paid for in some parts of the world but still free in others which is point-less anyway if so, but that depends in where you are going to access those things but if everything is virtual it senseless, since would one make virtual systsems in a X country prohibit if they serve in Y country, obiously not I guess!
I remember in fact a tale about virtual system trying to control that you can't give a web page to another individual, which sorts of feels bad, you know, you can't show anybody a thing is you pay for (If I can find the reference I will share it).
The antithesis was developed long before an Image-based Electronic Library , in AT&T Labs, where they associated for Copyright compliance efforts with Copyright Clearance Center CCC to ask the authors that didn't agree to allow photocopying their paper texts, to ask them directly if they might do so for their project.
I imagine a similar thing for the new tools on the Virtual Networked environments, where you share code directly on the net and so get involved in those efforts is something that is making proprietary users to feel threatened by that if so, for instance we could really make a Copyright clearance of Modula-3 sources (but implicitly telling FSF that we can share with them if they want to share code with us as well, which they could need who knows as I believe there are network packages here and there for Linux, etc. in Modula-3) so FSF feels happier and might want to ask the sources in other licenses which I believe is what concerns them they would do easier.
That's my little idea of the new computation era "issues".
Thanks in advance.
 G. A. Story, L. O’Gorman, D. Fox, L. L. Schaper, and H. V. Jagadish, “The RightPages image-based electronic library for alerting and browsing,” Computer, vol. 25, pp. 17-26, Sep. 1992.
--- 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
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
> It's on Posix systems such as Linux that we have less of a
> because they usually come with adequate development tools.
> -- hendrik
More information about the M3devel