[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: Stan Steel
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:39:58 -0600

As a non-contributor, I would prefer a BSD license over LGPL.  BSD more closely matches how I think of open source software today.  With regards to forking, I think there is little incentive to do that; Clang already exists under a BSD license and has an opinion that aligns with mine.

We actively intend for clang (and LLVM as a whole) to be used for commercial projects, not only as a stand-alone compiler but also as a library embedded inside a proprietary application. The BSD license is the simplest way to allow this. We feel that the license encourages contributors to pick up the source and work with it, and believe that those individuals and organizations will contribute back their work if they do not want to have to maintain a fork forever (which is time consuming and expensive when merges are involved). Further, nobody makes money on compilers these days, but many people need them to get bigger goals accomplished: it makes sense for everyone to work together.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Sean Conner <address@hidden> wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Daniel Glöckner once stated:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> > So the questions is:  Do you people want, is it possible, what
> > would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL
> > to a BSD-like one (such as below).
> >
> > Please discuss.
> I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL to BSD.
> It just encourages people to create private forks for binary-only
> releases.



Tinycc-devel mailing list

reply via email to

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