[M3devel] addition of GPL stuff

Sat Dec 5 23:15:20 CET 2015

Hey a little bit off topic, what about SRC reports, can we track down all the Green Book's (Systems programming with Modula-3) chapters and reformat them to make it public?I mean, I haven't seen anything of that quality in terms of intellectual strictness and so easy to read in any computer language book.
Thanks in advance

    El Sábado 5 de diciembre de 2015 6:54, Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

 #yiv5960026191 #yiv5960026191 --.yiv5960026191hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv5960026191 body.yiv5960026191hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv5960026191 We shouldn't spend much time on this, but...
The license that OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD use, that is what we should use.

It is the same license.

These are fairly large heavily used projects, and they copy code around amongst eachother, and commercial ventures fork and close the code, without attribution -- that is allowed.

This is a license that lets anyone do just about anything, including take it as their own and profit.

it is a short license.Shorter than this email.

It does not require giving credit.Giving credit is nice, but exactly how/where/when? And how muchtime/energy must people spend to figure that out?The older BSD license required giving credit, and there was protest and the claused was dropped.

it does not require giving back. Again, giving back is great, but requiring it is too much.What if someone wants to release something but we are all on vacation not answering email?They have to wait for us to respond to take their changes before they can ship them?

The point of this license is to remove any barrier to reuse that is easy to remove.(ignoring quality and functionality of the code)

One of the reasons OpenBSD rejects licenses is because more licenses requires more readingand possibly more lawyer time, more uncertainty, when there are already sufficient tried-and-truelicenses. I believe this is why they reject the Apache 2.0 license.

What the GPL does is quite different. It basically makes you GPL anythingyou link the GPL code to. It maybe doesn't require giving back, or require giving credit,but it requires source be available to anyone that receives the binaries. You can sell the binaries,but you must do so including source (or a link to download the source).Most commercial ventures believe that this requirement makes it impossible to make money.You might get one sale, but then the source is out and anyone can duplicate the functionality.Others claim that "support" is an adequate business model.

(If you are just sitting on the binaries all by yourself and don't give them to anyone, the GPL has no effect, youcan keep the source to yourself as well. People sometimes misunderstand this.)

MIT license is probably about the same and probably second best.

 - Jay

> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 13:36:58 -0500
> From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] addition of GPL stuff
> 
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:36:11AM +0000, microcode at zoho.com wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:30:09PM -0500, Hendrik Boom 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
> > 
> > snip
> > 
> > > Tht way, if ever a viable collection of Modula 3 code is licenced under 
> > > GPL, that collection can be used with GPL code freely.
> > 
> > No. MIT and BSD licensed code can be used in any project. GPL poisons the
> > product and is not compatible with free software licenses.
> 
> Yes, MIT licence is good. And it doesn't conflict with the SRC 
> licence, either so that should be good, too.
> 
> And so is the BSD licence without the advertising clause.
> 
> Apple went to town with this one when theyy build OS/X, so it's 
> definitely nonrestrictive.
> 
> > 
> > I realize my opinion is irrelevant but I agree with Jay 1,000% on this. And
> > it's an open mailing list, so...
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_______________________________________________
M3devel mailing list
M3devel at elegosoft.com
https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20151205/bb06f0d3/attachment-0002.html>