[M3devel] m2tom3

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
If anyone working a networking tool uses a _DEC_ license why would you suggest asking they to release it in a different license if only that makes work with another package to _DEC_.
Is their obligation to release that, according to the original license you can not ask them to release their sources in that other license so, unless  you clear the _DEC_ license then it makes no sense to do that later, in that view it's necessary to ask them more than one time.
So that makes the all idea of sub license not clever at all which is what others did.
The point is whatever package uses Modula-3 will need that license. Does this feel fair?
I say if you have another license (and commercial house like Pine Creek Software, or others as well), makes sense since you can actually give away your software or not (I say this because once we have the sources on a "cloud" term BTW rejected by myself and for once and all by RMS), will be given to anyone in a public "virtual network", so you can not ask them to release their packages in that other license if it is derivative or not see PM3. That's why I guess _DEC_ released it in the '94 as a pretty liberal to have just one. So we can have the idea of a "public cloud" and a private one in one and feel free to ask them to do so, anyway the DEC license doesn't prohibit linking against Modula-3 GPL libraries, or why is that lm is linked in Modula-3.
You need to look at the facts and see that it can be licensed like that since it's your will to do so, but do your code need that is useless once again because it will bypassed anyway (is against that freedom you want).
The world is not just one point, even in the "virtual networks", and everyone should be free to pass around software, that's the main "resource" of a society as RMS stays, is what creates a good society in which we can live in, even if you don't agree the arguments is clever enough to give it a try for such a society in digital terms this is free software and society around it that makes it if so.
If none want that then it is pointless to ask the _DEC_ license to be free for RMS etc want that ever, as he did but was rejected by '88 to Olivetti, it is us who want that, theirs is their business to accept it or not (asking to give them the copyrights seems like they can change their license to whatever they like and I can't agree with that as well, as _DEC_ I think didn't agree to do in their time their efforts to do so).
Indeed _DEC_ tried with '94 license, whatever it feels right now for FSF I don't know but I like more the idea of having 2 licenses, since it's us who want that change, but again, giving it two or three or more licenses makes no much sense for my point of view if anyone wants that, it is useless, that's the point of the unique '94 license, much more liberty that anyone can have (RMS before '94 denial is a show of that as well, I agree with you on that).
Thanks in advance

 

--- El sáb, 26/11/11, 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: sábado, 26 de noviembre, 2011 13:35
> >> 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.
> 
> A lot of /Linux/ software has been infected by GPL's viral
> forcible open
> source license. BSD and MIT licenses existed before GPL,
> they are truly
> /free/ and open source licenses, and they are also
> compatible with the GPL
> (for me that compatibility is worth nothing).
> 
> If you use the GPL you will contaminate the original DEC
> license and
> people who would have contributed or included your software
> in situations
> where BSD and MIT licenses are common and accepted but who
> don't like GPL
> (OpenBSD for a notable example) will have problems with it.
> I personally
> have a problem with it. I was very pleased to find CM3 and
> the SRC license
> and I would be very dissapointed if it was contaminated by
> the GPL in the
> future.
> 
> If you are going for freedom, there are a few good choices
> and none of them
> are GPL. I cannot any reason other than politics for adding
> the GPL to a
> preexisting product. I sincerely hope elegosoft avoids
> this!
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Mixing and matching licenses doesn't help because the GPL
> adds restrictions
> that aren't present in true free open source licenses. If
> you feel it
> necessary to license, what is the reason? Do you want to
> maintain ownership
> and foster community participation? Then use BSD or MIT
> licenses which are
> compatible with any open source license. Do you want to
> make a political
> statement and jump on a bandwagon over a cliff to the point
> where many big
> operations won't touch your product for fear of having to
> expose their
> code? Choose GPL. The GPL is incompatible with most open
> source licenses
> because it is not free, it adds restrictions that other
> licenses don't have.
> 
> I read recently MINIX had said they are attempting to build
> commercial
> support and demand for their OS and they found the BSD
> license a
> significant help in doing that. They said many potential
> customers object
> to the GPL.
> 
> From a standpoint of true freedom /and/ possible commercial
> success the BSD
> and MIT style licenses seem so obviously superior to a
> viral forcible open
> source license, I just can't see why anybody would choose
> the GPL except
> for purely political reasons. It's self destructive.
> 
> >> 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?).
> 
> Yes, I can confirm they're compatible from GPL's
> standpoint. I don't know
> about the DEC/SRC license.
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> I understand Windows users are mostly stuck with prebuilt
> applications. I
> don't understand what licensing considerations have to do
> with that. If you
> use the SRC license does that have any effect on the
> executables? If so,
> how will adding code with other licenses whether BSD, MIT,
> or even GPL make
> anything simpler or change anything? If the CM3 runtime is
> included in the
> SRC license then that is the low bar, that is, you will
> only be able to add
> restrictions to it, not remove any. If the runtime is not
> included then I
> think it would be extremely unwise to encumber it any
> further. I feel it
> would be unwise to encumber it any further in any case.
> 
> 
> 
>