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

[lgcraymer]

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/