Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 14:49, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > - As Goran mentions, there is still uncertainty about the freeness of
> > the SmaCC generation tools.=20
> 
> I disagree. From the SmaCC download page: "SmaCC is available for free
> use. We only request that if you create a parser for some widely
> available language, you make it available for others to use." and a
> no-warranty disclaimer. That's good enough for me for inclusion.
> 
> If they later decide to make a commercial version of SmaCC, fine. The
> Squeak community can just continue building on whatever is in the image.
> Question for our emergency holographic laywer ;-): Andrew, if someone
> puts up software in source form for download, without any mention about
> licensing terms, etcetera, like
> http://www.refactory.com/RefactoringBrowser/, is there any 'default'
> that I can assume in. E.g. can I assume that the stuff has been put into
> the public domain?

This exact question that you are now posing is the exact reason for me
claiming the uncertainty which you (see above) disagreed with. ;-) I
have looked at the webpage and I have read what John have written.

IMHO I would like a license and not rely on the above quoted text.

And also - we have vowed earlier to try to keep "Squeak official" under
Squeak-L. Relying on the above "license" would definitely break that
little "rule".

> (RB is just an example; the majority of Smalltalk goodies - including
> some of mine ;-) - are distributed this way).

I know - I am probably just as big a sinner as everyone else. :-) But we
really should try to keep track of these things.

regards, Göran