Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

[KHMan]

On 5/1/2013 5:58 PM, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> > The fear of proprietary forks seems
> > unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler
> > (clang) available for people to base their work on.
>
> Let's see..
> $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang
>     text           data     bss     dec     hex filename
> 38999778        1193992   54640 40248410        266245a /opt/llvm/bin/clang
>
> I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a
> small scripting engine.

I would vote for a BSD licensed tinycc (remembering that talk is 
easy, manpower supply is hard). Given a show of hands, I think BSD 
would come out on top. After all, it's not a state-of-the-art 
thingy with a huge potential market; CINT and Ch for example have 
not gained much traction beyond niche areas. Much more advanced 
compiled/JITed scripting engines like LuaJIT are already BSD licensed.

LGPL holdouts can be removed in the BSD version and be relegated 
to legacy status. Perhaps big contributions can be evaluated early 
to assess deletions. The main problem is the issue of doing a 
thorough audit of code ownership. Of course, I'll leave that to 
those supplying the manpower...

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia