Intent to package: pm3
Oops. Mistyped "org" when I tried to send this before. :)
--- Begin Message ---
PM3: Polytechnique Montreal Modula-3
The Modula-3 distribution of Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal is based
on the DEC SRC Modula-3 programming environment.
Modula-3 is a systems programming language that descends from Mesa,
Modula-2, Cedar, and Modula-2+. It also resembles its cousins Object
Pascal, Oberon, and Euclid.
The goal of Modula-3 is to be as simple and safe as it can be while
meeting the needs of modern systems programmers. Instead of exploring
features, they studied the features of the Modula family of languages
that have proven themselves in practice and tried to simplify them into
a harmonious language. They found that most of the successful features
were aimed at one of two main goals: greater robustness, and a simpler,
more systematic type system.
Modula-3 retains one of Modula-2's most successful features, the
provision for explicit interfaces between modules. It adds objects and
classes, exception handling, garbage collection, lightweight processes
(or threads), and the isolation of unsafe features.
A large number of platform independent libraries are available for
constructing distributed, graphical, multi-threaded applications.
This is liable to be a *very large* package, at least initially.
Eventually, I will break it up into a number of smaller packages.
The only open question, which I have been discussing on debian-legal, is
whether this package needs to go into non-free or whether it can go into
main. The relevant part of the license which causes some concern is:
9. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. The SOFTWARE and documentation are
with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use duplication, or disclosure by the
is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii)
Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause in DFARS
252.227-7013, or subparagraphs (c)(i) and (2) of the Commercial
Software -- Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable.
Manufacturer is Digital Equipment Corporation, 130 Lytton Avenue,
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1044.
Being that I am unfamiliar with the cited DFARS clause (and haven't
looked up the CFR reference), this may be just boilerplate text which is
effectively meaningless, or might be considered as a DFSG-non-free
discrimination against "fields of endeavor" (i.e., the U.S. Gov't).
Though, on the latter point, would a license be non-free if it
discriminated against, say, use in criminal activity, such as theft or
murder? And if one can prohibit use for theft and murder, why not
taxation or warfare? Just a thought.... :)
Presently, I'm inclined to release into main, unless anyone strongly
--- End Message ---