[antlr-interest] Re: antlraux v0.2 released - new site (http://antlraux.sf.net)

Matthew Ford Matthew.Ford at forward.com.au
Thu Jul 31 15:30:14 PDT 2003


Thanks for the comments, Enrique

I would appreciate a less commercially restictive licence.
The example project I would use your package in does Algorithmic
Differentiaton on a maths language.
For this I need scope at each point in the tree and I need to update the
scope on each pass through the tree.

This work is done under contract so the option of charging for support is
not available.

I need to be able to provide to my customer a complete package they can
on-sell in what ever method their business model dictates with out
restriction.

I am happy to feed back improvements and bug fixes into utility packages
like yours as long as I can ship them with commercial software, without
licence problems.

regards
matthew

----- Original Message -----
From: "antlrlist" <antlrlist at yahoo.com>
To: <antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 8:14 AM
Subject: [antlr-interest] Re: antlraux v0.2 released - new site
(http://antlraux.sf.net)


>
> Answer below...
>
> <Matthew.Ford at f...> wrote:
> > Hi Enrique,
> > Nice looking package.  Unfortunately I cannot use it because your
> licencing would force me to give away any work I use it with.
> >
> > " b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> >     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> >     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> >     parties under the terms of this License.
> > "
> >
> > As a private software developer/contractor (no big support company
> here) I
> > need to be able to charge for my work (keeps food on the table).
> People who
> > contract me also want to charge for my work.
> >
> > Could I encourage you (and other Antlr add-on developers) to keep the
> > licencing as open as Antlr's.
> >
> > matthew.
> >
>
> Hi Matthew!
>
> First of all, thanks for your feedbak!
>
> The verb "give away" in your statement is a bit ambiguous. The GPL
> only forces you to release your code along with your binaries, if you
> make any releases. It does not force you to "give it away" in the
> sense of "give it away for free": you can certainly sell it, as long
> as you provide the binaries+source or at least provide a link were you
> can download the source. Plus, you don't have to provide any
> guarantees or technical support for this code.
>
> It is true that you allow legal file copies. But you're not required
> to also make it available to the public without a charge - others
> could. This is because free software business model is not
> product-based, but service-based: you can still charge others for
> installation, maintenance, formation, etc. You don't have to offer any
> support if they don't pay you.
>
> Moreover, if you don't release your program to the public (this is,
> you use it as an internal tool) you don't have to do anything; you can
> keep your source for yourself.
>
> This said, you're the first one who has shown interest in the tool. I
> made the effort to release it because I wanted people to use it; if
> you're really going to use it, I can change the license to another a
> bit more permissive, like LGPL.
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the time of writing your opinion.
>
> Enrique.
>
>
>
>
> 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/ 




More information about the antlr-interest mailing list