[ANN] Closure Compiler
Travis Griggs
tgriggs at keyww.com
Tue Mar 25 16:32:17 UTC 2003
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> 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.
As a Squeak list lurker... I find it entertaining that there is
widespread recognition that there has got to be a "better way" than the
monolithic image, but at the same time there is a drive to apply a
monolegal license. Ironic, don't you think? Squeak should just be a
distro. Otherwise, you're going to be having flamewars about whether it
should be called SmaCC or Squeak/SmaCC (aka Linux vs. GNU/Linux).
--
Travis Griggs
Key Technology
One Man's Pink Plane is Another Man's Blue Plane
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|