> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Markus Gaelli
> 
> Am Montag, 17.02.03 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb goran.hultgren at bluefish.se:
> 
> > Without having looked at SmaCC (I have used T-gen in that past though
> > and also ehrm... Flex, Bison etc) I guess that it might be time for
> > Squeak to move over to a declaratively generated Scanner/Parser instead
> > of a handmade one.
> >
> > 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