BNF grammar in specification license

Does the BNF grammar for ECMAScript in the specification licensed under BSD license? The license says that software (code) is BSD-licensed. BNF grammar is machine-readable and -executable, is it software? ___ es-discuss mailing list

The specification license issue

Has the ECMAScript specification license problem been resolved? If so, how? ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: (Request/propose) license change

Has the specification licensing issue been discussed at the last TC39 conference yet? What is the results? ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: (Request/propose) license change

What do you mean by a post with only Nope? --- To Ecma International: Release the ECMAScript specification under Creative Commons Attribution 1.0+ / Open Web Foundation License 0.8+ ---Original message--- From: Brendan Eich Sent: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:28:39 -0700 To:

Everything is an expression

var x = if (condition) a; else b; var y = {let x = m; let y = n; x+2*y;} Why does JavaScript don't support these? --- To Ecma International: Release the ECMAScript specification under Creative Commons Attribution 1.0+ / Open Web Foundation License 0.8+

Re: (Request/propose) license change

New thread, good points. I'll make two more: 1. es-discuss is not the best place for complaints about the spec license and random suggestions to move standardization to the WHATWG. 2. It would help us, musicdenotation, if we knew you better. I'm not insisting on a true name but at least some

Propose license change

To solve this problem, I think that the standard should be a WHATWG standard. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss