[M3devel] License compatibility

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
technically they were binary license compatibles, I see you take too hard what I say thanks, but don't think so hard about this.
But in the need of that you can use the compiler type checking for Modula-3, so most of what you say is true, also if the compiler is compatible perhaps would be question for Eric Muller, who wrote parts of it, the nice thing about Modula-3 was that it was everything object oriented (which is what Java claims about its System). 
Thanks in advance

--- El dom, 1/7/12, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> escribió:

De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
Asunto: Re: [M3devel] License compatibility
Para: "m3devel at elegosoft.com" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
Fecha: domingo, 1 de julio, 2012 14:49

On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 08:10:16PM +0100, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. wrote:
> Hi all:
> technically, the CM J-V-M was binary compatible with Sun JVM, wasn't 
> it? So in terms of binary compatibility CM3 is binary compatible with 
> Sun JDK 

You're not trying to tell me that I could use CM3 and Sun JDK 
interchangably, are you?  That would mean I can use the JDK to compile 
Modula 3 code.  I have my doubts.

> (I guess the only version they had), wasn't that the idea to 
> port Java to Modula-3 easily?  Ando so if you can link Sun JDK with 
> Gcc I guess you can do it with CM3 at least technically.

The question isn't whether we can link CM3 programs with gcc.  THe 
question is whether we can distribute such linked programs.  And that 
doesn't depend on the CM3 compiler as much as the CM3 run-time system.

And it's not aa question of technical compatibility.  It's a matter off 
license compatibility.  And I suspet the only way we'll get *thst* to
work is  to write a new run-time system and new libraries that *are* 
built with a GPL-compatibble license.

Or hope the whole issue goes away as free software drifts to freeer 
licenses and we no longer need any GPL libraries.

-- hendrik

> Thanks in advance 
> 
> --- El dom, 1/7/12, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> escribió:
> 
> De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] License compatibility
> Para: "m3devel at elegosoft.com" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
> Fecha: domingo, 1 de julio, 2012 13:58
> 
> 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
> > >>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20120702/d5eecf8d/attachment-0002.html>