[ANN] Closure Compiler
Markus Gaelli
gaelli at emergent.de
Tue Mar 25 12:57:26 UTC 2003
Am Dienstag, 25.03.03 um 11:31 Uhr schrieb goran.hultgren at bluefish.se:
> BUT... I don't want to sound like a bitch, but I still haven't heard a
> clarification on the license for SmaCC. I still argue that if this
> stuff
> should go into official Squeak (which I *really* want) we need to clear
> up the license issue. The absolutely best of course would be if SmaCC
> could be duallicensed under MIT + SqueakL.
>
> Stephane? Did you contact John about it?
I did that time, and John answered to the squeak-dev list:
>
>>> Are there any disadvantages of this that I am not aware of? Ooops -
>>> there could be a BIG one here. What license is SmaCC under? We need
>>> Squeak-L and it seems to use some other license (couldn't find it but
>>> SM
>>> has it listed under "other") if we are going to base Squeak core
>>> stuff
>>> on this.
>> John?
>
> I try not to think about licenses that much. We make our stuff
> available for
> people to use and hope that we get some paying work in return (lately
> that
> hasn't been much). What license supports that? :-) As for releasing
> parsers
> created with SmaCC in a base Squeak image, we could probably license
> the
> runtime under the Squeak license (assuming that we can understand what
> that
> implies).
>
>
> John Brant
So the runtime-version, what is basically what we need here, wouldn't
be a problem,
but as far as I know, the RefactoringBrowser-license is undecided also,
so I don't know
about the "Refactory abstract syntax tree".
John? :-)
Markus
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|