[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: grischka
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 10:55:42 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:12:50PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:07:34PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Mmmmh. Overall I'm more a (A|L)GPL guy but I choose different license for different project. For tcc I thought it could make sense since we have only libtcc has static lib and many people seem to build stuff around it.
And if I volunteer to extend the Makefile for a shared libtcc?

We already have rules for libtcc.so.1.0 and libtcc.dll in our Makefile.

Actually the fact that LGPL makes that legal nitpick from static
vs. shared is clearly one point against it, for me.

Plus the fact that to be consequent we'd need to be prepared to
go after infringements.  I personally neither have time nor
intentions to do that.  Anyone else here?

Anyway, you might realize that in order to keep the option real,
I decided to give up my "undecided" position.

Maybe it's the right time to give tinycc a slight push into a
different direction, or back to the direction that it was once
meant to go.

Thus I suggest:  Let's go for it.  No risk no fun.  Yes or yes?

What do you think, Daniel?

Unless you object we could then proceed with step 2:  Is it
possible?  Well, why not.  And then step 3:  What would it take?
I guess we would first ask all people who have contributed entire
files, that is, beyond yourself and myself and Fabrice:  Shinichiro
Hamaji (x86_64-gen.c) and maybe Frederic Feret (x86_64-asm.c, which
I eventually merged into i386-asm.c, which probably means that it
wasn't soo different).

--- grischka


reply via email to

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