Re: Possibility of Colorer usage (was: php syntax)

2001-09-22 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hi, Max! > > I understand that for the recent "converts" from Windows lack of Far > > Manager is pretty frustrating, but I don't like the idea of rewriting > > Colorer in C and maintaining a forked version, while keeping it compatible > > with the new data files from the "official" version. > I s

Re: Possibility of Colorer usage (was: php syntax)

2001-09-21 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > > About the first problem: now colorer uses "Apache Software License". > > > > Is it acceptable for us? > > > > > > I think it's Ok for GPL'd software to link against any libraries, even > > > against the ones under restrictive commercial licenses (e.g. libc on > > > Solaris). > > > > I

Re: Possibility of Colorer usage (was: php syntax)

2001-09-21 Thread Max Schedriviy
On Fri 21 Sep 2001 05:30, Pavel Roskin wrote: > I understand that for the recent "converts" from Windows lack of Far > Manager is pretty frustrating, but I don't like the idea of rewriting > Colorer in C and maintaining a forked version, while keeping it compatible > with the new data files from

Re: Possibility of Colorer usage (was: php syntax)

2001-09-20 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hi, Pavel! > > > About the first problem: now colorer uses "Apache Software License". > > > Is it acceptable for us? > > > > I think it's Ok for GPL'd software to link against any libraries, even > > against the ones under restrictive commercial licenses (e.g. libc on > > Solaris). > > Its not. G

Re: Possibility of Colorer usage (was: php syntax)

2001-09-20 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > About the first problem: now colorer uses "Apache Software License". > > Is it acceptable for us? > > I think it's Ok for GPL'd software to link against any libraries, even > against the ones under restrictive commercial licenses (e.g. libc on > Solaris). Its not. GPL has special except

Re: Possibility of Colorer usage (was: php syntax)

2001-09-18 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hi, Walery! On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Walery Studennikov wrote: > At Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:43:24 Pavel Roskin wrote: > > I agree with you that the syntax highlighting engine is ugly. But I don't > > think that it's realistic to use Colorer for two reasons - it is > > not under GPL and it is written i

Possibility of Colorer usage (was: php syntax)

2001-09-18 Thread Walery Studennikov
At Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:43:24 Pavel Roskin wrote: > I agree with you that the syntax highlighting engine is ugly. But I don't > think that it's realistic to use Colorer for two reasons - it is > not under GPL and it is written in C++. The second problem is quite solvable: C++ features are used a