[ANN] Closure Compiler

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Tue Mar 25 13:51:00 UTC 2003


Markus Gaelli <gaelli at emergent.de> wrote:
[SNIP]
> So the runtime-version, what is basically what we need here, wouldn't 
> be a problem,

Well, again - don't want to sound like a bitch :-), but that is a bit of
a "slippery slope" to go down.

What happens if John decides to go commercial on SmaCC developer version
and charge for it? Then I suddenly couldn't work on the Compiler in
Squeak without paying John, right? Not a very nice situation IMHO - it
is essentially restricting the malleability of Squeak.

I don't know about all the rest of you - but personally I want Squeak to
be "as free as possible". And I don't want us to be "slack" in that
regard. And incorporating code into official Squeak generated from a
tool that is not under an open source (or SqueakL) license is IMHO not
good.

AFAIK at least the Unix version of Squeak can be built from scratch (VM,
plugins etc) using only open source tools and everything in the image
can be manipulated using tools in the image that are under Squeak-L
(pretty close to open source in my book). Effectively anyone interested
in helping out developing Squeak can do so without paying a dime -
everything is available.

This would change this fact.

> but as far as I know, the RefactoringBrowser-license is undecided also, 
> so I don't know
> about the "Refactory abstract syntax tree".

Well, that's another one.

> John? :-)
> 
> Markus

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list