On 5/1/2013 5:58 PM, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
The fear of proprietary forks seems
unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler
(clang) available for people to base their work on.
Let's see..
$ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang
text data bss dec hex filename
38999778 1193992 54640 40248410 266245a /opt/llvm/bin/clang
I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a
small scripting engine.
I would vote for a BSD licensed tinycc (remembering that talk is
easy, manpower supply is hard). Given a show of hands, I think BSD
would come out on top. After all, it's not a state-of-the-art
thingy with a huge potential market; CINT and Ch for example have
not gained much traction beyond niche areas. Much more advanced
compiled/JITed scripting engines like LuaJIT are already BSD licensed.
LGPL holdouts can be removed in the BSD version and be relegated
to legacy status. Perhaps big contributions can be evaluated early
to assess deletions. The main problem is the issue of doing a
thorough audit of code ownership. Of course, I'll leave that to
those supplying the manpower...
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel