Re: ContextCleanupPlus-ajh (was: Re: KCP & 3.6)

Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:08:54AM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi guys!
>>
>>Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>>    
>>
>>>But ClosuresCs does not depend on SmaCC. It has been generated using  
>>>SmaCC which
>>>is different. I do not need to include bison because I use a parser  
>>>developed with it.
>>>Or there is something wrong.
>>>Can you let me know if I'm wrong?
>>>Stef
>>>      
>>>
>
>Unlike bison, which outputs a parser that only requires a C compiler, to
>run a SmaCC-generated compiler, you need to load the SmaCC runtime package.
>I couldn't find anything on the SmaCC site that suggests that the license
>is any different for the SmaCC runtime than for the full SmaCC.
>

My understanding from discussions on squeak-dev awhile ago is that the 
SmaCC authors (John Brant) agreed to license the SmaCC runtime under 
Squeak-L, but not the full SmaCC.

It sounded like they would consider offering the entire SmaCC under 
Squeak-L, except Squeak-L had a few funny clauses, which gets back to 
the general Squeak-L issues... perhaps simplifying Squeak-L via 
sublicensing would also make it more likely that these types of third 
party packages (in entirety) could be added to Squeak.  (See Daniel's 
summary of the current licensing situation on squeak-dev.)

- Doug Way