[antlr-interest] 2.8 update

[Micheal J]

> Yup, even if :-).

If the [New] BSD license (or whatever license) essentially grants the sames
rights and imposes the same restriction as some other license like the MIT
X, why change?

If people have misconceptions about the BSD license, they simply need to
read it. They would have to in any case if they were truly bothered about
how it's terms affect their use of the intellectual property they are
licensing by using an open source project.

> 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?"

There usually is a requirement to acknowledge the intellectual contributions
of work that one uses (even for closed source systems). I can see no problem
with that. In the example you give, there would be no conflict in any case.
Use of the code generated by ANTLR isn't restricted in any way.

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

Don't doubt it. I've had similar questions and I answered them as above.

Micheal