Sure, of course. Actually, I've just had another look and I've realised
I did screw up the ARM stuff - I was trying to maintain the existing
behaviour since I didn't have a test system, but it looks like I messed
it up. I think it's just a matter of deleting the first #ifdef
TCC_ARM_EABI block
... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his
original tcc code under a BSD license ...
Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated
lately on the occasion of the 0.9.26 release.
So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what
would it take - to
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote:
So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what
would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL
to a BSD-like one (such as below).
Please discuss.
I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL
Le mardi 30 avril 2013 15:40:43, grischka a écrit :
... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his
original tcc code under a BSD license ...
Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated
lately on the occasion of the 0.9.26 release.
Yes, sorry. I weant to send an
It was thus said that the Great Daniel Glöckner once stated:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote:
So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what
would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL
to a BSD-like one (such as below).
Please
As a non-contributor, I would prefer a BSD license over LGPL. BSD more
closely matches how I think of open source software today. With regards to
forking, I think there is little incentive to do that; Clang already exists
under a BSD license and has an opinion that aligns with mine.
*We
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause.
Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL?
What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer?
Daniel
___
Tinycc-devel
Le mardi 30 avril 2013 18:53:31, Daniel Glöckner a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause.
Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL?
What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer?
Mmmmh.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:07:34PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Mmmmh. Overall I'm more a (A|L)GPL guy but I choose different license for
different project. For tcc I thought it could make sense since we have only
libtcc has static lib and many people seem to build stuff around it.
And
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:03:43 +0200
From: Daniel Gl?ckner daniel...@gmx.net
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Message-ID: 20130430140343.ga14...@minime.bse
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at
Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause.
Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL?
What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer?
I don't have a preference yet (and even if I
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote:
... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his original
tcc code under a BSD license ...
Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated
lately on the occasion of the 0.9.26 release.
So the questions is: Do
On 04/30/2013 11:53:31 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause.
Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmtP5Lg_t0#t=15m10s
What about you,
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
I'm personally not much bothered about someone using my portions
of code in some private or commercial project. If anything at
all I'm interested in the best future for the tinycc code base
itself.
In that sense, let's think positive:
OOPS forgot to say THANKYOU for getting it. (and giving it).
A module is a module, and can be used in different ways.
Even if that 'module' looks like a complete stand-alone application.
EG the 'ls' command, with its non-trivial interpretation of bits in inodes,
can clearly be standalone, but
On 04/30/2013 12:35:30 PM, Jared Maddox wrote:
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:03:43 +0200
From: Daniel Gl?ckner daniel...@gmx.net
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Message-ID: 20130430140343.ga14...@minime.bse
Content-Type: text/plain;
On 5/1/2013 9:51 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
On 04/30/2013 11:53:31 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause.
Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL?
17 matches
Mail list logo
