SmaCC-Development (was: Allow MIT-licensed code to be partof"SqueakOfficial"?)

I hope your planning on including SmaCC-Development and not just
SmaCC-Runtime.  It wouldn't be Squeak if we could not change the Parser
within itself.

Cheers,
Tony

Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 02:21 AM, [email protected] 
> wrote:
> 
> > Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> There seems to be agreement that allowing the MIT license into "Squeak
> >> Official" (Full/Basic) is reasonable.  (And also possibly BSD, but we
> >> might as well put that off until it is needed.
> > [SNIP of stuff I totally agree on]
> >
> > Yes, all sounds good.
> 
> Alright, I'll incorporate SmaCC-Runtime in the next round of updates 
> then.  It will be handled as an "in-image" package for now, so we can 
> keep track of the MIT-licensed code... the master copy of SmaCC will be 
> on SqueakMap, and I'll just include the package as an update.
> 
> Hm, I notice the SmaCC Runtime package on SqueakMap says "Other 
> License" at the moment, that should be changed to "MIT".  Markus G., 
> could you update this?  Hm, also the package itself is a SAR at the 
> moment (containing only one .st file)... it would be better if it were 
> a .st or .cs file instead, so I don't have to keep converting from .sar 
> by hand every time I incorporate a new version as a changeset update.  
> (Not that that will probably happen very often, but...)
> 
> - Doug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation