[M3devel] License compatibility

[Hendrik Boom]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 02:08:04PM -0400, Antony Hosking wrote:
> I thought LGPL allowed binary linkage without infection.

Only if the program is distributed in such a way that the user can relink it
with updated versions of the LGPL library.  I don't know if that's too 
much to ask of the typical dumb user I've postulated.  Considering how 
I've had to recompile several m3 libraries just to go on using them with 
libXaw, it may indeed be too much to expect.

Now I don't mind sending out source code.  I'm concerned with the end 
user who minds receiving it.

It would presumably be the Modula 3 libraries that pose the problem, I 
suppose.  I'm not talking about the compiler itself, which is not part 
of my program or the libraries.  I guess I'm concerned with the 
libraries one cannot do without, like libm3.

FSF claims that the GPL3 is compatible with more free licensess than the 
GPL2.

Is there a document somewhere that identifies just what the problem is 
with out license?

-- hendrik

> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jul 1, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 08:45:17PM -0400, Antony Hosking wrote:
> >> Not compatible.  FSF official. 
> >> 
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > So this presumably means it is impossible to distribute binary for any
> > Modula 3 program that uses a GPL library even if you include source code.
> > Because presumably the basic M3 run-time system is under the M3 license and therefore incompatible.
> > 
> > Which means it's practically impossible to provide such a program to anyone
> > that doesn't understand how to use a compiler, which is most Windows users.
> > 
> > Or is there some wiggle room somewhere?
> > 
> > -- hendrik
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Jun 30, 2012, at 20:39, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I've heard, ages ago, that the SRC was not considered compatible with 
> >>> the GPL.  I'd really like to know if this is true.  Not whether it 
> >>> should be compatible, not whether people were afraid of it being 
> >>> incompatible... not whether some people think it's cmopatible, but 
> >>> whether it *is* compatible.
> >>> 
> >>> Has anyone ever got a definitive answer to this question?
> >>> 
> >>> If not, should I ask the FSF explicitly?
> >>> 
> >>> -- hendrik
> >>>