I hope your planning on including SmaCC-Development and not just SmaCC-Runtime. It wouldn't be Squeak if we could not change the Parser within itself.
Cheers, Tony
Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 02:21 AM, goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com wrote:
There seems to be agreement that allowing the MIT license into "Squeak Official" (Full/Basic) is reasonable. (And also possibly BSD, but we might as well put that off until it is needed.
[SNIP of stuff I totally agree on]
Yes, all sounds good.
Alright, I'll incorporate SmaCC-Runtime in the next round of updates then. It will be handled as an "in-image" package for now, so we can keep track of the MIT-licensed code... the master copy of SmaCC will be on SqueakMap, and I'll just include the package as an update.
Hm, I notice the SmaCC Runtime package on SqueakMap says "Other License" at the moment, that should be changed to "MIT". Markus G., could you update this? Hm, also the package itself is a SAR at the moment (containing only one .st file)... it would be better if it were a .st or .cs file instead, so I don't have to keep converting from .sar by hand every time I incorporate a new version as a changeset update. (Not that that will probably happen very often, but...)
- Doug
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
hi anthony
SmaCC-Development will be on squeakmac so everybody will be able to change it.
Stef
On Dimanche, nov 23, 2003, at 19:32 Europe/Zurich, Anthony Hannan wrote:
I hope your planning on including SmaCC-Development and not just SmaCC-Runtime. It wouldn't be Squeak if we could not change the Parser within itself.
Cheers, Tony
Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 02:21 AM, goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com wrote:
There seems to be agreement that allowing the MIT license into "Squeak Official" (Full/Basic) is reasonable. (And also possibly BSD, but we might as well put that off until it is needed.
[SNIP of stuff I totally agree on]
Yes, all sounds good.
Alright, I'll incorporate SmaCC-Runtime in the next round of updates then. It will be handled as an "in-image" package for now, so we can keep track of the MIT-licensed code... the master copy of SmaCC will be on SqueakMap, and I'll just include the package as an update.
Hm, I notice the SmaCC Runtime package on SqueakMap says "Other License" at the moment, that should be changed to "MIT". Markus G., could you update this? Hm, also the package itself is a SAR at the moment (containing only one .st file)... it would be better if it were a .st or .cs file instead, so I don't have to keep converting from .sar by hand every time I incorporate a new version as a changeset update. (Not that that will probably happen very often, but...)
- Doug
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
This could go either way. The ability to change the old compiler was built-in to the Basic release before, so perhaps SmaCC-Development should be part of the Basic release. On the other hand, it is easily available from SqueakMap, and relatively few developers will want the convenience of having it built in to Basic.
I think it probably should be part of Basic (eventually), but until we have SM 2.1 with configurations and have the Basic image split up into packages/modules, it's probably more trouble than it's worth to include it. (It would need to be another in-image package.)
- Doug
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 01:36 PM, ducasse wrote:
hi anthony
SmaCC-Development will be on squeakmac so everybody will be able to change it.
Stef
On Dimanche, nov 23, 2003, at 19:32 Europe/Zurich, Anthony Hannan wrote:
I hope your planning on including SmaCC-Development and not just SmaCC-Runtime. It wouldn't be Squeak if we could not change the Parser within itself.
Cheers, Tony
Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 02:21 AM, goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com wrote:
There seems to be agreement that allowing the MIT license into "Squeak Official" (Full/Basic) is reasonable. (And also possibly BSD, but we might as well put that off until it is needed.
[SNIP of stuff I totally agree on]
Yes, all sounds good.
Alright, I'll incorporate SmaCC-Runtime in the next round of updates then. It will be handled as an "in-image" package for now, so we can keep track of the MIT-licensed code... the master copy of SmaCC will be on SqueakMap, and I'll just include the package as an update.
Hm, I notice the SmaCC Runtime package on SqueakMap says "Other License" at the moment, that should be changed to "MIT". Markus G., could you update this? Hm, also the package itself is a SAR at the moment (containing only one .st file)... it would be better if it were a .st or .cs file instead, so I don't have to keep converting from .sar by hand every time I incorporate a new version as a changeset update. (Not that that will probably happen very often, but...)
- Doug
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Anthony Hannan -
Doug Way -
ducasse