On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 05:29:55 -0500 Deyan Ginev <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am quite late to this discussion, but the sheer volume of it got me > interested in reading and responding. > > I am honestly quite surprised to see claims that licensing has been an > issue for Marpa, or conversely that changing to a *more* permissive license > would be an issue. The argument largely seems that there are large numbers > of people that feel too restricted by copyleft, and inversely - that demand > copyleft. My humble experience with FLOSS projects has been that the vast > majority of contributors don't pay that much attention to copyleft in the > first place. Having a "free" license satisfies most, be it some GPL, MIT, > Apache, or the Perl artistic license. > > So my advice is to just choose whatever makes you feel most comfortable. > Yeah, I agree. GPL, MIT, Apache, something the project made itself, but is still pretty much open-source. It doesn't matter. I think libraries are often better off being BSD or MIT, but LGPL is almost as good, but GPL is a four letter word in some cases. My only complaint is the use of CLAs and especially copyright assignment. I just feel like copyright assignment steals my code, and gives it to someone else, who winds up having all of the power. They both are a real drain on any sort of community you might want to build up, because you have to deal with paperwork before your contribution gets accepted into the project, and many people just avoid contributing instead of doing the paperwork. Gigantically successful projects like Ubuntu could probably get away with a CLA, or 100% company developed but still open-source projects can get away with it like Google's V8. > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 4:58 AM, David Yingling <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:42:32 -0800 > > Jeffrey Kegler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > @David: Thanks for your research in the matter which, however, mostly > > > confirms me in thinking of copyright assignment as a good idea. If you > > > favor liberal licensing like the MIT license, you should perhaps think > > > kindly about it, too, because ... > > > > > > 1.) Not having had copyright assignment in the past has already hurt > > Marpa > > > license liberalization and continues to. At this point, I think using > > the > > > LPGL for Marpa::R2 was a mistake but, since I didn't ask for copyright > > > assignment, I cannot liberalize it without dealing with that issue. The > > > result is that Marpa::R2 will probably stay as it is. > > > > > > > You could probably email the 7 contributors that github says Marpa::R2 > > has, and > > easily ask them for permission to change the license to MIT, and then maybe > > commit their replies to github say in the new LICENSE file. Unless one or > > more > > of them are die hard into GPL, you could probably do this without to much > > fuss. > > > > > I am able to change Libmarpa, but only due to lucky circumstances -- it's > > > code is so opaque that only I have made significant contributions, so the > > > effect as if I had required copyright assignment. > > > > > > > I think you overestimate how many people have avoided marpa due to LGPL > > avoidance. I think most people avoid it simply because its a parsing > > library, > > and since parsing is quickly forgotten after everyone's Dragon book class, > > nobody bothers even trying to parse anything. Only those interested in > > parsing > > something bother relearning parsing theory, BNF, parsing algorithms and > > libraries. The Earley algorithm is decently well known, for example, a > > book I'm > > reading right now "Programing Language Pragmatics" mentions it in its > > parsing > > chapter, but says it and some other algorithm for parsing any context-free > > grammar are O(n^3) failing to mention the work of Joop Leo, John > > Aycock, R. Nigel Horspool, and yourself making it O(n) most of the time > > and O(nlogn) worst case. > > > > > 2.) The serious "blowback" from copyright assignments in your research > > is > > > from using it to put code under restrictive (and in some cases deceptive) > > > licenses; and/or from annoyance at the paperwork. Neither is a problem > > > here. > > > > > > > Actually the backlash is not from companies actually putting open-source > > code > > into proprietary licenses. Canonical, for example, still had its > > open-source > > projects be open-source after they added copyright assignment. The > > blowback, > > instead, was from the fear that now Canonical now had the power to take > > their > > previously open-source code, and "steal" it from the open-source > > community, and > > take it closed source. A very real possibility for a company. You're just > > one > > guy, but if some company hires you, they could buy the Marpa copyright from > > you and thanks to copyright assignment have all of your contributors' > > copyrights too. The company could then change marpa's license from MIT to > > proprietary. This is a very real possibility. If someone owns all of the > > copyright to something then, they can "unopen-source" it, and Marpa could > > wind > > up being only proprietary software without any open source code. I even > > think > > this would result in past Marpa releases being "unopen-sourced". The > > company > > could remove them from CPAN and Github, and file a DMCA takedown to > > BackPAN to > > have Marpa vanish from CPAN and open-source forever. With a copyright > > assignment > > policy this is a very real possibility, and is why some people fear and > > hate > > copyright assignment. It can result in the "un-open-sourcing" of previously > > open-source projects. You seem like a nice guy, and I don't see you doing > > this, > > but its still possible, and the possibility is enough to anger people > > despite > > it being unlikely. > > > > > 3.) Above I mentioned the upside of copyright assignment for liberal > > > licensing. Its downside is limited. Liberal licenses already allow > > > anybody to exercise most of the rights the copyright holder has. As > > > copyright holder, I could turn around and put the current codebase > > inside a > > > proprietary wrapper, but so could anybody else under the MIT license. > > > > > > > The huge part your missing, and the huge fear that open-source developers > > have > > from copyright assignment is if all copyright is assigned to only open > > person > > or company, only that single person or company is needed to change the > > license. > > So, if Libmarpa has copyright assignment, then you can change the license > > to > > MIT, but you also have the power to change the license to a proprietary > > license > > effectively ending marpa having an open source license and being > > open-source > > software. The "un-open-sourcing" I mentioned above. This is different than > > a > > company taking MIT licensed Marpa and adding some features and giving it a > > proprietary license, because if a company did this, the open-source license > > version of marpa would still exist. However, copyright assignment would > > give > > you or whoever you might one day sell marpa to the power to change the > > license on the one and only "open-source" version of marpa to a proprietary > > license thereby "un-open-sourcing" it. > > > > > 4.) Will having no paperwork undermine enforceability? Maybe. But if it > > > does, we've lost nothing. And with liberal licensing, enforcement is > > less > > > likely to be challenged -- the GPL folks have to sweat these things, > > > because folks have an incentive to try to break their license. With the > > > MIT license, there's not much to break. > > > > > > > No paperwork does not undermine enforceability it means that no copyright > > assignment has taken place. Copyright is property you need to sign > > something to > > change ownership of property. You can license property just by > > contributing to > > an open source project, but you can't do copyright assignment. That's what > > my > > last email was trying to say. If all you do is put up a paragraph in your > > README file all you get is angering some people because you use copyright > > assignment, and with no paperwork no copyright assignment actually > > happens. You > > get the bad part, angry potential users and developers, without the good > > part, > > any copyright assignment actually taking place. > > > > > The copyright assignment and the change to liberal licensing really go > > > together. And the MIT license is getting a favorable reception. Perhaps > > > the line about copyright assignment in the README will turn some folks > > off, > > > which is unfortunate, but I hope they'll understand. > > > > > > > Actually they do not. Libmarpa, for example, can have its license changed > > since > > the code is almost certainly all yours. Github says it has 5 contributors, > > but > > that probably also includes documentation fixes and other non-code stuff. > > And > > tomorrow you could just change the README and LICENSE and maybe copyright > > lines > > in code files, and be done with it. Then marpa would be MIT. Notice how > > absolutely no copyright assignment policy was needed. If you can change the > > license without copyright assignment, why do they go together? You can > > change > > the license to MIT, because you own all of the code that actually matters, > > where is the need for copyright assignment? > > > > > Note, by the way, that if I start asking for copyright assignment, and it > > > turns out to be a dumb idea, I can always reverse course. I if don't, > > that > > > has already proved to be a bad idea, and one whose effects will continue > > to > > > worsen. > > > > > > > I don't think you can change it if it proves a bad idea, because Marpa is > > such > > a small project it is unlikely to ever prove to be a bad idea as few people > > are likely to post to this list or email you directly about their > > disagreement over Marpa's copyright assignment policy. Instead, they'll > > just ignore Marpa, and look for some other parsing library that meets their > > needs. Marpa is not Ubuntu. Ubuntu is absolutly massive. People blog and > > tweet > > about each and every change Canonical makes. Whereas Marpa is tiny. It has > > few > > people angered by copyright assignment, because it's such a small project. > > You > > will probably never get any emails complaining about copyright assignment > > directly to you or this list just like you never received any emails to > > this > > list or directly regarding people angered that they can't check out Marpa, > > because its LGPL. All you're likely to find is another reddit post this > > time > > complaining about copyright assignment. > > > > Thanks, > > Dave. > > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:06 AM, David Yingling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:40:59 -0800 > > > > Jeffrey Kegler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > To clarify -- I have no plan to contact anybody re copyright > > > > assignment. I > > > > > also have not plan to require, or even to accept, any paperwork. > > There > > > > > will be no form to sign. I'll just add a line to the Github README. > > > > This > > > > > will not help with previous contributions, but there have been no > > > > > significant contributions to Libmarpa from anybody but me, and I > > plan to > > > > > leave the license of Marpa::R2 as it is. > > > > > > > > > > I will not accept any paperwork because I don't want to spend the > > time, > > > > or > > > > > ask others to do so. Larry Wall tells me he's never required any > > > > paperwork > > > > > and has yet to have any problems. That doesn't mean there won't be > > > > > problems, but that's possible no matter what you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What project of Larry Wall's uses copyright assignment? I think Perl5 > > is > > > > GPLv1/Artisticv1, and Perl6 is Artistic 2. I don't know what license > > patch > > > > is > > > > or was maybe BSD or GPL? Do any of these actually _require_ copyright > > > > assignment? > > > > > > > > After some googling and searching perl's mailing lists > > > > ( > > > > > > http://perl.markmail.org/search/?q=%22copyright+assignment%22#query:%22copyright%20assignment%22+page:2+state:facets > > > > ), > > > > it seems some big contributors of Perl 5, 6, and Parrot have signed > > > > copyright > > > > assignment paperwork assigning their copyright to the Perl Foundation > > or > > > > The > > > > Parrot Foundation, but copyright assignment seems to be optional *not* > > > > required. > > > > All three projects seem to be willing to take patches without copyright > > > > assignment. Perhaps that's how Larry Wall doesn't have to deal with any > > > > paperwork, because his projects freely and fully accept patches without > > > > copyright assignment, but big contributors are asked to sign. It seems > > the > > > > TPF > > > > or TParrotF just get big contributors to sign over their copyrights if > > they > > > > choose to do so, but nowhere does there seem to be an actual > > requirement > > > > anywhere. For example, none of their README or LICENSE files mention > > > > copyright > > > > assignment anywhere. > > > > > > > > Yeah, paperwork would just be a waste of time, but without it is > > copyright > > > > actually assigned? I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but I think the > > answer > > > > is no. > > > > After some googling, I found this page: > > > > http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html > > > > It says copyright is "a personal property right" (at least in the US), > > so I > > > > don't think you stating in a README file that your project using > > copyright > > > > assignment is enough for my copyright to actually be assigned to you. I > > > > think > > > > you need to buy my property from me, or I need to actually sign some > > > > annoying > > > > piece of paper for it to actually happen. So, without the annoying > > piece of > > > > paper, your project using copyright assignment does not actually have > > > > copyright > > > > assignment since you haven't bought your contributors' personal > > property > > > > (their > > > > copyright) from them. > > > > > > > > So, if copyright assignment without proper paperwork and lawyers is > > > > powerless, > > > > and would never stand up in court, why bother with it? It just angers > > some > > > > people over ideological concerns mentioned in my prior email without > > > > providing > > > > any useful benefits, because legally an actual signature is needed for > > > > copyright assignment to happen, so without the signature there is no > > actual > > > > copyright assignment. > > > > > > > > While googling I found a great article on > > > > lwn.net about copyright assignment angering people: > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/414051/#copyright-assignment > > > > > > > > Also, I think you might have "copyright assignment" confused with > > > > "contributor > > > > license agreements" (CLAs). "copyright assignment" is when a company or > > > > non-profit (you might be the first individual without some non-profit > > > > foundation for their project actually using copyright assignment) > > forces > > > > contributors to sign annoying paperwork giving their copyright for > > their > > > > contributions back to the company or non-profit. While, a CLA is an > > > > annoying > > > > paper you sign or perhaps just fill out a form on a Website (like > > Canonical > > > > does) is an agreement where you retain copyright of your contributions, > > > > but you > > > > grant a license to the company or non-profit. > > > > > > > > A great example of copyright assignment vs CLAs is Canonical's infamous > > > > "Canonical Contributor Agreement", whose brief history is well > > explained > > > > here: > > > > http://agateau.com/2013/my-stance-on-cla/ > > > > Basically what happened was Canonical announced their copyright > > assignment > > > > policy, but hid it under the misnomer "Canonical Contributor > > Agreement". > > > > Once > > > > it was outed as copyright assignment there was a massive backlash > > against > > > > Canonical with many users and contributors ditching Canonical and > > Ubuntu in > > > > droves. Apparently it was so massive, Canonical was forced to ditch > > > > copyright > > > > assignment, and use a CLA instead to make their lawyers happy. This > > > > managed to > > > > appease some or most of those that previously were angered by the > > original > > > > copyright assignment policy. > > > > > > > > Any sort of parsing is really complicated. Even regexes are, but > > they're so > > > > useful everyone struggles for a while to learn them. Parsing is even > > more > > > > complicated. Even BNF, which is pretty simple, is really complicated to > > > > use to > > > > model any sort of language. Marpa is also really complicated to learn > > and > > > > use. > > > > Or at least there is enough of a belief that it is really complicated. > > > > That it > > > > keeps people from even beginning to learn and use it sorta like how > > > > Calculus is > > > > really infamous and notoriously difficult in highschool or college. > > All I'm > > > > saying is Marpa already has this natural barrier preventing people from > > > > using > > > > it already. It does not also need powerless (due to no paperwork) > > copyright > > > > assignment angering people due to ideological reasons also keeping > > people > > > > from > > > > using it. Furthermore, a comment on the lwn.net article mentions how > > Apple > > > > "effectively requires copyright assignment for the LLVM/Clang suite, > > > > though no > > > > one really follows it. Since the license is BSD-ish, there's no real > > > > practical > > > > difference anyway." I'm no license expert, but the MIT license is > > similar > > > > to > > > > the BSD license (both not copyleft licenses...), so choosing such a > > free > > > > license effectively limits whatever power using copyright assignment > > gives > > > > you. > > > > > > > > Also, adding copyright assignment is directly against the spirit of > > > > changing > > > > the license from a fairly restrictive LGPL to a less restrictive MIT. > > > > Because > > > > by changing it from only LGPL to MIT + copyright assignment, you've > > > > effectively > > > > changed nothing: LGPL has copyleft provisions while MIT + copyright > > > > assignment > > > > has copyright assignment restrictions. So, you're not actually making > > it > > > > more > > > > open more academic like; instead, you're only replacing one restriction > > > > with > > > > another. People see LGPL get annoyed its copyleft. People see MIT + > > > > copyright > > > > assignment get annoyed its copyright assignment. Same thing just > > different > > > > restrictions. > > > > > > > > Finally, without the paperwork, copyright assignment is powerless, and > > most > > > > likely won't stand up in court. And if the copyright assignment is > > > > powerless, > > > > all you get for adding it to your projects is angering some people > > causing > > > > them > > > > not only to avoid contributing to marpa, but also avoid even using it > > in > > > > their > > > > project, because if you're against copyright assignment, you can't use > > a > > > > library that has copyright assignment, because if there is a bug you > > find, > > > > you > > > > can't fix it yourself, because you'd have to give up your copyright in > > > > order to > > > > contribute your patch, but you're against doing so preventing you from > > even > > > > considering using the library. > > > > > > > > > Also to clarify, I am not moving to the MIT License to avoid angering > > > > > people. I was perfectly happy to have folks angry at me for using > > the > > > > > LGPL. I was less happy to be ignored. And I do want them to read > > and > > > > use > > > > > Libmarpa, and to be able to do on terms more in line with the > > traditions > > > > > for mathematics. > > > > > > > > Oh, now I get it. The reddit post you mentioned was some people > > checking > > > > the > > > > license, and if its GPL ignoring it, and not even reading it. This > > sucks. > > > > Marpa > > > > is probably not patented, so some one could turn your paper into some > > MIT > > > > licensed code, but that's unlikely given the difficulty. > > > > > > > > This whole issue reminds me of the most amazing data structure I've > > heard > > > > of: > > > > Judy Arrays. A totally amazing data structure that's cache-aware that > > can > > > > replace virtually all data structures people use: AVL trees, Red-Black > > > > trees, > > > > any other tree, arrays, even hashes (associative arrays). Its > > supposedly > > > > even > > > > faster that all of the algorithms everyone uses and is taught in > > school, > > > > and > > > > only arrays and linked-lists use less memory. It's cool and just like > > Marpa > > > > it's insanely complicated. Its Website has a "Judy Arrays in 10 > > minutes" > > > > article that barely scratches the surface of how amazing the algorithm > > is, > > > > and > > > > how amazingly complicated it is. It replaces simplicity with amazing > > > > performance. Its Website is http://judy.sourceforge.net/ , but as its > > > > wikipedia > > > > page mentions its patented by HP till 2020, so everybody avoids it > > like the > > > > plague, because its patent has infected it just like the plague. Will > > > > copyright > > > > assignment be Marpa's plague causing everyone to steer clear of it, and > > > > avoid > > > > it even more than the copyleft? > > > > > > > > Thanks for marpa. Sorry for the super long and dense post. I just want > > to > > > > avoid > > > > Marpa having a gigantic flashing banner ad in its README file that many > > > > people > > > > will interpret as "Don't touch me". Especially if without proper > > paperwork > > > > the > > > > "Don't touch me" sign has no power other than as a gigantic billboard > > > > forcing > > > > many potential users or contributors to avoid using Marpa, > > > > Dave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:59 PM, David Yingling <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:10:10 -0800 > > > > > > Jeffrey Kegler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to ask opinions about two licensing changes I am thinking > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Switching Libmarpa to the MIT/Lua license. Currently there > > are > > > > some > > > > > > > companies that forbid their employees to read LGPL code, because > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > danger to their IP in the code that those employees write. In > > the > > > > case > > > > > > of > > > > > > > Libmarpa, I *want* people to read my code -- they can read my > > > > papers, and > > > > > > > the code supplements and illustrates those papers, so it makes > > little > > > > > > sense > > > > > > > to restrict it. Moving to an MIT license means that people will > > be > > > > able > > > > > > to > > > > > > > use the Libmarpa code freely in proprietary code. There is a > > > > downside to > > > > > > > this, but the Lua folks and increasingly the open source > > community > > > > seem > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be embracing this trade-off as a win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for it. Marpa's complexity makes someone else getting > > inspired > > > > by > > > > > > your > > > > > > paper to implement it with a less restrictive license basically > > zero > > > > > > especially > > > > > > if their only reason for doing so is religiously favoring one > > license > > > > over > > > > > > another (Like the GNU folks favoring the GPL or OpenBSD favoring > > the > > > > ISC.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.) Changing both Marpa::R2 and Libmarpa so that anyone > > contributing > > > > code > > > > > > > assigns the copyright to me. The upside of this is that I can > > > > change the > > > > > > > license. That's also the downside -- I, or someone who managed > > to > > > > > > legally > > > > > > > take over the copyright from me, would have the right to change > > to a > > > > > > > proprietary license. I don't want to minimize this danger -- > > open > > > > source > > > > > > > software being taken proprietary is something that happens a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the trade-offs are in favor of copyright assignment to > > me. > > > > My > > > > > > plan > > > > > > > is to use the right to change the license to make licensing more > > > > liberal. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't find this reason very compelling. In order to do copyright > > > > > > assignment, > > > > > > you have to contact all of your past contributors, and convince > > them to > > > > > > fill > > > > > > out a form of some kind. However, if all you really want to do is > > > > change > > > > > > the > > > > > > license this one time; instead, you could contact them all, and ask > > > > them to > > > > > > agree to license their patches back to you and everyone else under > > > > > > whatever new > > > > > > license you choose such as MIT or BSD or ISC or public domain or > > > > whatever. > > > > > > This > > > > > > way you can do the relicense you want to, but avoid angering some > > > > people > > > > > > due to > > > > > > ideological concerns (mentioned below), and having to administer > > > > whatever > > > > > > copyright assignment scheme you want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And note that current and past versions would remain subject to > > the > > > > old > > > > > > > open-source licenses -- neither I or anyone else has the right to > > > > rescind > > > > > > > those licenses. You could always "re-free" the software by > > starting > > > > over > > > > > > > from a fork of a previous open-source version. It's a hassle, > > but > > > > it can > > > > > > > be done if needed. And in a sense, it's a danger you are already > > > > running > > > > > > > -- even if I can't change the licensing, I might become a flaky > > > > project > > > > > > > leader, with the same practical effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > You're ignoring the most important issue with copyright assignment. > > > > Just as > > > > > > with the issue of GPL vs BSD(MIT,etc...), people hate copyright > > > > > > assignment. I > > > > > > do. Some organizations use it so they can make some money like > > MySQL > > > > AB. > > > > > > did > > > > > > back before Sun bought them: companies could buy a "real" license > > from > > > > > > MySQL > > > > > > AB. and use it in their proprietary products allowing them to > > "bypass" > > > > the > > > > > > GPL, > > > > > > because they bought a license direct from the only owner MySQL. > > MySQL > > > > AB. > > > > > > needed the copyright assignment to protect this business model. > > Others > > > > use > > > > > > it > > > > > > like the FSF does so they can have a better case when they sue > > people > > > > who > > > > > > violate the GPL. (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html). > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why I hate copyright assignment. I think its just > > > > > > philosophical or > > > > > > perhaps ideological, which is much worse (Think Vi vs. Emacs). I > > just > > > > > > don't like the idea of the author of something I want to spend time > > > > > > contributing to effectively "stealing" my work just so he could > > > > potentially > > > > > > change the license in the future without needing my permission or > > > > > > rewriting my > > > > > > code. I suppose its not stealing, because I'm choosing to give you > > my > > > > > > copyright, but I'm not freely choosing to do so, because you're > > > > forcing me > > > > > > to > > > > > > in order for my code to be accepted into your project. > > > > > > > > > > > > The other problem of copyright assignment is the actual paperwork > > > > needed > > > > > > to do > > > > > > so. Obviously everyone who submits code and then does the copyright > > > > > > assignment > > > > > > is not going to need to hire a lawyer to do so. I wondered what > > the FSF > > > > > > does. > > > > > > Apparently it's quite a process. > > > > > > (https://www.fsf.org/licensing/assigning.html). There is even an > > > > > > "Assignment > > > > > > Administrator". I'm sure you could find a much simpler process, but > > > > would > > > > > > it > > > > > > be as rigorous, and able to stand up in court if needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > Just as some people seeing its LGPL, and getting all angry that > > Marpa > > > > > > fails to > > > > > > use their license of choice (BSD or MIT or something similar like > > ISC > > > > like > > > > > > OpenBSD uses), some people will get all angry that Marpa has > > copyright > > > > > > assignment. I already have. I've even bothered to write this email > > to > > > > the > > > > > > list > > > > > > where I'm a long time lurker. I just really hate copyright > > assignment. > > > > > > MySQL > > > > > > AB. using it to make some money I was ok with. FSF being crazy > > zealots > > > > > > requiring copyright assignment just to make any potential lawsuits > > more > > > > > > effective, I'm ok with. But some cool small project like Marpa > > using it > > > > > > just to > > > > > > potentially change the license in the future just makes me > > surprisingly > > > > > > angry > > > > > > (ideology is powerful stuff). Ironically, potentially angering > > people > > > > > > originally > > > > > > inspired you to make this move (the reddit post). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm keeping Marpa::R2 on the LGPL, at least for the time being. > > With > > > > > > > Libmarpa the asymmetry between by completely-open Theory papers > > and > > > > my > > > > > > > LGPL'd code makes the trade-off pretty clear. And nobody but me > > has > > > > made > > > > > > > any significant contribution to Libmarpa. With Marpa::R2, both > > these > > > > > > > factors are less clear. And in some months I expect it to be > > > > replaced > > > > > > with > > > > > > > a Kollos-based Marpa::R3, so that it's not worthwhile to spend a > > lot > > > > of > > > > > > > time rethinking Marpa::R2 licensing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A final note: Libmarpa contains some code derived from LGPL'd > > code > > > > > > written > > > > > > > by others -- GNU's obstack's, and Ben Pfaff's AVL code. This > > code > > > > must > > > > > > and > > > > > > > will remain LGPL'd. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, jeffrey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google > > > > > > Groups "marpa parser" group. > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > > > > send > > > > > > an email to [email protected]. > > > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups > > > > > > "marpa parser" group. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > > send > > > > an > > > > > > email to [email protected]. > > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "marpa parser" group. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > > send > > > > an email to [email protected]. > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "marpa parser" group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an > > > > email to [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "marpa parser" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an email to [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "marpa parser" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "marpa parser" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa parser" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
