[antlr-interest] [v3] Lack of documentation

Gerald B. Rosenberg gbr at newtechlaw.com
Tue Jul 3 11:59:49 PDT 2007


At 10:34 AM 7/3/2007, Andy Tripp wrote:
>scott at javadude.com wrote:
>>
>>Yes, "open source" means "the source is open". But the license says you
>>can use it for free.
>No, that's not right either. The BSD license 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
>says no such thing.

Wait, actually, the BSD license does exactly say use is free.  To quote:

* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted * (subject to a few limitations that are 
nonconsequential to the current discussion)

Though that does not actually support Scott's implied contention.

The BSD license only goes to the source.  It says nothing about 
documentation.  Or support.  Or any other ancillary service.  There 
is simply no obligation whatsoever to provide any documentation or 
other service and support.  The author of the OSS code could very 
well keep private a commented copy and only release, fully permitted 
under the BSD license, a completely scrubbed version.

The provision of any documentation, as well as the list forum, Wiki, 
and personal investiture of time and effort to answer questions and 
fix problems, by an OSS author is purely gratis.  For anyone to look 
at whatever documentation and support any OSS author provides and 
contend that it is somehow morally insufficient or worse, to impugn 
the author as foisting some nefarious plan, is just plain 
jaded.  And, yes, that was the (humorously attempted) point of my prior post.

IAAL, so standard no-legal-advice-given disclaimers apply.

Best,
Gerald 




More information about the antlr-interest mailing list