[antlr-interest] Re: ANTLR Rights and Open Source issues

[Matthew Ford]

I like that kind of set up so I can use Antlr for commercial work and not
have to pass on  licence restrictions on the end produce which I supply to
the client.
matthew
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Barron" <david.barron at synergex.com>
To: <antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: [antlr-interest] Re: ANTLR Rights and Open Source issues


> Look at the GNU lesser public license (which deals with libraries).  That
> should be a good starting point for allowing the redistribution of code
> generated by ANTLR and linked against the ANTLR libraries (whether they be
> Java/C++/Sather/C#/...) on other licenses (including commercial if
> appropriate) while still protecting the original ANTLR source code
license.
>
>
> The LGPL allows developers who link against a library to redistribute
their
> linked application under any license whatsoever, while still making the
> source code of the library subject to the normal GPL restrictions.
>
> David Barron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lgcraymer [mailto:lgc at mail1.jpl.nasa.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:50 PM
> To: antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [antlr-interest] Re: ANTLR Rights and Open Source issues
>
>
> John, Eric, Ian, Chuck--
>
> Thanks for the pointers.  After looking over the opensource licenses,
> I "like" the Intel version of the BSD license  (it deals with a
> couple of sensitive issues--modification and export--not addressed in
> the BSD license).  It might be useful to tack on a clause excluding
> ANTLR-generated code (thoughts, anyone?), but I think that the
> existence of any sort of license on ANTLR would keep Ter from having
> to write letters and would support the intent of the ANTLR "Rights".
>
> Is anyone violently pro or con having an Open Source license on ANTLR?
>
> --Loring
>
>
> --- In antlr-interest at y..., "John D. Mitchell" <johnm-antlr at n...>
> wrote:
> > >>>>> "Terence" == Terence Parr <parrt at j...> writes:
> > [...]
> > > My main concern is that if I use the word copyright anywhere, then
> it
> > > will reduce the "no brainer" nature of the "license".  No lawyers,
> no
> > > fuss, no muss.  A number of developers have told me that this has
> really
> > > helped them introduce ANTLR into their commercial projects
> (overcoming
> > > any management legal objections).
> >
> > The (revised) BSD license is as simple as it gets without putting it
> into
> > the public domain.
> >
> > You can argue that the MIT license is even simpler but I personally
> think
> > the no endorsement clause is necessary.
> >
> > The tech world has really opened its eyes to the variety of OSS
> licenses
> > and so, IMHO, BSD vs PD is much less of an issue to then BSD vs e.g.
> GPL.
> >
> >
> > > Still though would you believe that people occasionally ask for a
> written
> > > letter indicating they can use the software?!  Pretty amazing
> world we
> > > live in.
> >
> > Sure -- <bleep/> lawyer <bleep/>!
> >
> >
> > FYI, all of the "official" OSS licenses are listed at:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html
> >
> > Go wild,
> > John
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/