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 wrote:

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...

@Bastiaan
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.

Best,
Bastiaan.

Reply via email to