|
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...
-- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |