[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

From: KHMan
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 19:43:57 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5

On 5/1/2013 5:58 PM, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
The fear of proprietary forks seems
unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler
(clang) available for people to base their work on.

Let's see..
$ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang
    text           data     bss     dec     hex filename
38999778        1193992   54640 40248410        266245a /opt/llvm/bin/clang

I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a
small scripting engine.

I would vote for a BSD licensed tinycc (remembering that talk is easy, manpower supply is hard). Given a show of hands, I think BSD would come out on top. After all, it's not a state-of-the-art thingy with a huge potential market; CINT and Ch for example have not gained much traction beyond niche areas. Much more advanced compiled/JITed scripting engines like LuaJIT are already BSD licensed.

LGPL holdouts can be removed in the BSD version and be relegated to legacy status. Perhaps big contributions can be evaluated early to assess deletions. The main problem is the issue of doing a thorough audit of code ownership. Of course, I'll leave that to those supplying the manpower...

Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]