[antlr-interest] 2.8 update

[Dean Tribble]

Yup, even if :-).  Though this is not something that I think comes up 
very often, it does come up.  Ironically, last week I was reviewing 
code, and suggested using a parser generator instead their manually 
generated parser.  When asked where to find one, I talked about Antlr, 
and that it was open source.  His next question:  "Isn't there some 
issue with advertising?"

(No, I'm not making this story up!)

Terence Parr wrote:

>
> On Feb 5, 2005, at 1:02 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
>> When we open sourced the old Xanadu sources at Udanax.com, we were 
>> going to use the BSD License (i.e., the New BSD License without the 
>> advertising clause). However, after the fifth time we were asked "The 
>> one with or without the advertising clause?", we switched to the MIT 
>> X License in order to avoid the confusion.
>
>
> Even if the license is sitting in front of them and clearly does not 
> have the advertising clause?
>
>>> I do like the MIT license too...
>>
>>
>> Would you be willing to switch to it?
>
>
> well, if they are identical I'd probably go with the BSD license as 
> Berkeley is across the bay and I have a west coast bias ;)
>
> Ter
> -- 
> CS Professor & Grad Director, University of San Francisco
> Creator, ANTLR Parser Generator, http://www.antlr.org
> Cofounder, http://www.jguru.com
>
>
>
>