[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.

From: John B
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:42:48 +0000

Hi Daniel, thank you for your replies.  I am going to bow out of this thread 
for a while.  My advice to you and everyone is to stop assuming the worst in 
others or inferring their motives.  Also I think you are mistaken about bsd, 
but even if you aren't that's fine.  Bottom line bsd eliminates the need to 
reveal derivative work.  Everyone still has access to the underlining original 
source.  People give e.g. Microsoft a bad time for using bsd, but did they 
magically remove the open source code from existence all because they used it? 
uh no.

And by de-identified I mean... releasing my version of the library to the open 
source community, and maybe it will be useful to somebody in a novel way I 
don't know.  Honestly my software is geared more towards statisticians than 
really anyone else  (coming back to my original praise for jit-expressions).  
So at the same time I do that open-source give back, I am also releasing my 
application separate to that in a completely different setting and nobody will 
be able to marry the two together.  It'll be stripped of an identifiable 
information that ties back to the application. Now  I would have as much 
interest to see the library gain strength as anyone if I am a consumer of it.  
So you can buy my software and you can go to some open source community and see 
this library... but you'll never know they were the same entity much like some 
people still don't know coca-cola own minute-maid.  So that is what I mean by 
releasing my derivative in a de-identified way.  I guess it is a term we use at 
work when you have object A and object B and you have legal requirements to 
make sure you cannot prove a relationship between them.  The flip side to this 
is to explicitly declare that relationship lest you be in contempt of the 
license rules.  Hope that makes more sense.  So I know I would be willing to 
release whatever you can think of so long as you don't know how my program was 
built.  It is not like tiny_cc is doing something conceptually that nobody 
knows about, it's a compiler

From: address@hidden <address@hidden> on behalf of Daniel Glöckner 
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 4:20 AM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] License is too restrictive for real-world use.

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:04AM +0000, John B wrote:
> Also I was hoping maybe a previous version of it that didn't include
> as many devs on-boarding from the 2013 version could be changed.  Thus
> nulling out the sign-off on devs that came afterwards.

My first contribution was merged in 2003 if you are looking for older

> Because bsd license I believe would be 100x healthier for the project.

It sounded like you wanted to keep it a secret in your product that is
would be based on TinyCC. That is in violation of the second clause of
the BSD license. The MIT license has a similar clause (actually it is
more similar to the first BSD clause but not restricted to source code).

> People would absolutely contribute back, but in a de-identified way.
> I Absolutely believe this.

So you would contribute back everything if it was BSD?

What do you mean by "de-identified"?

Best regards,


Tinycc-devel mailing list

reply via email to

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