[M3devel] addition of GPL stuff

[Hendrik Boom]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:35:26PM -0800, Darko Volaric wrote:
> What's the argument against placing contributions in the public domain?

Public Domain would satisfy me adequately.  If it were universal.
However, there are partss of the world where public domain is not an 
accepted legal concept.  That's why there is a creative Commons licence 
that is essentially equivalent to public domain.

> Licences are tedious. Even short ones require reading and understanding
> when you're using the code, and most people use many projects.
> 
> Renouncing copyright is simple, flexible and no-one can copyright the work.

Actually, they can as soon as they make changes.  The original remains 
public, but they can claim rights over the modifications.

> 
> Or am I missing some important legal wrinkle? Do contributors want to keep
> control of their code?

The legal wrinkle is that public domain is not everywhere recognised.

I believe the Creative Commons website has something to say about this.

--- hendrik

> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 06:14:52AM +0000, Jay K wrote:
> > > Um, sorry to bring up such annoying matters, but maybe we should not
> > be licensingnew files as GPL, assuming they aren't derived from GPL files?
> > > e.g. the LLVM m3makfiles and Makefiles?
> > > Thank you, - Jay
> >
> > To resurrect a post from ages gone by.
> >
> > We should be licencing everything GPL, assuming it's original, and not
> > already constrained by SRC's license.
> >
> > If another license is appropriate, use that too.  Make it dual licensed.
> > Dual licencing works as possible: anyone gets to choose which of
> > the licences they are going to use.  So if your use is allowed by *any*
> > of the listed licenses, it's OK.
> >
> > It's a way to achieve greater compatibility than could be obtained by
> > any one of those licenses.
> >
> > In particular, the copyright owner (initially the author) could grant
> > rights under both the GPL and the SRC licenses, to assure copatibility
> > with both.  THe LGPL might be better than GPL for freedom, and the MIT
> > licence even better.
> >
> > Tht way, if ever a viable collection of Modula 3 code is licenced under
> > GPL, that collection can be used with GPL code freely.
> >
> > -- hendrik
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > M3devel mailing list
> > > M3devel at elegosoft.com
> > > https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > M3devel mailing list
> > M3devel at elegosoft.com
> > https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel
> >