On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:04AM +0000, John B wrote: > Also I was hoping maybe a previous version of it that didn't include > as many devs on-boarding from the 2013 version could be changed. Thus > nulling out the sign-off on devs that came afterwards.
My first contribution was merged in 2003 if you are looking for older versions. > Because bsd license I believe would be 100x healthier for the project. It sounded like you wanted to keep it a secret in your product that is would be based on TinyCC. That is in violation of the second clause of the BSD license. The MIT license has a similar clause (actually it is more similar to the first BSD clause but not restricted to source code). > People would absolutely contribute back, but in a de-identified way. > I Absolutely believe this. So you would contribute back everything if it was BSD? What do you mean by "de-identified"? Best regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
