[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: Jared Maddox
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 13:27:33 -0500

> Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 11:48:29 -0500
> From: Rob Landley <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed

> I also plan to include an implementation of make, maybe some of the
> other low hanging posix fruit (lex, m4, maybe a micro-yacc) that

I've considered writing a tiny-make before. I might provide some
"files updated" hooks for tup-like functionality, too, and will
almost-guaranteed provide a "clean implementation" flag to disable the
obnoxious default behaviors that prevent make from being generic. If I
do it, then I'll be posting a mention here. If I do and you want to
use it, but the license isn't right, then point me to this and remind
me to license it as MIT, BSD, or ZLIB.

> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 10:55:42 +0200
> From: grischka <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

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

> 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).

You actually need to ask everyone that's committed as little as a
one-liner that's still in TCC. I'd suggest that if this is taken
seriously, that one of the requirements for committing to TCC BECOME
that "contributions have to be licensed to TCC royalty-free, and
freely and infinitely redistributable under whatsoever license terms
TCC chooses to redistibute them under".

There's probably several better worded versions of that out there, and
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what I might have missed, but I trist
my point is conveyed. This might force the mob branch to be moved to a
separate project, and only be pulled from after all relevant commit
authors agree to have their relevant commits placed under the the
terms, but so be it. I'm personally of the opinion that any open
project beyond a thousand or so lines of code should probably have
such "commit licensing" requirements so that license (and whatever
other) changes remain PRACTICAL over time.

For what it's worth, while getting permission from all of those who've
produced commits would be involved, I'd think that it would also be
worth it's own release, just for "paperwork" reasons.

reply via email to

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