On Thursday, 17 September 2015 at 20:32:59 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 17 September 2015 at 16:55:42 UTC, John Colvin
Assuming you wrote it all, you can license the code in
whatever way you want. See http://choosealicense.com for more
info. You can even use multiple licenses, or different
licenses for different parts of the code.
Hmm reading this. No license, is best for now.
Take your time, but without a license anyone cloning or forking
your repo is in fact violating your copyright. It is not what
most people expect on github, and I will have to delete my fork
and local clone...
The FancyPars Grammar for pascal will look very very
different from what you wrote.
In FancyPars Grammars I worked very hard to avoid repetitions.
FGPs do not just describe the language grammar. They are
describing the AST-Structure.
So just by reading the grammar a person working with the AST
will know what is what and in which members-variables of the
AST-Node which information is stored.
I can see the value of that when designing a grammar, or building
a translator. In my case though the grammar was standardised a
quarter of a century ago, and available in BNF. Redefining the
complete language in FPG by hand would be interesting but time
consuming and error prone -- not sure that would pay in the end.
Maybe writing a BNF2FPG transcompiler would get me there faster...
But, without a license I am prohibited from experimenting with
it. Even with permission for educational purposes or the like,
which I think you have implied, I am not sure that I will be
allowed to construct a transcompiler intended for the translation
of proprietary source in the end.
I am afraid I can't afford the time to investigate the
possibilities of FancyPars until legal uncertainties are resolved.
Maybe you could consider to make the core of FancyPars Open
Source with one of the mainstream licenses, without further
restrictions. The parts that you want to keep proprietary I would
not publish at all. That way, if somebody else decides to write
an analyser, he will not risk infringing the copyright of your
closed source, because it is not publicly viewable.