Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:27:50 -0800
At 4:56 PM +0100 1/9/03, Paolo Molaro wrote:
>On 01/09/03 Simon Waite wrote:
>> That sounds good, I've no problem with LGPL, but I think the final desision
>> rests with miguel(wrt mono) and ultimatly the previous owner (I'm sorry I
>Steve Newman is not the 'previous owner' :-)
>He's the author and has final say on his code (by changing the license
>in the sources).
I'd be quite happy to relicense as LGPL; in fact I would prefer LGPL to X11. But frankly I'm willing to go either way. Whichever license will get more people working with/on the code.
>and the components may use different licenses, as long as they can be
>linked together. Ultimately the author of the component decides the
>license. Of course having a single license would result in less
>questions on the list, I guess:-)
>As I understand it, currently the status of the projects is basically
>(I'm using 'done' as in pretty good shape):
> janet JScript
>Parser done done
>Execution C# (working?) node interpreter (status?)
>Basic runtime done done
>Helper libs done? done?
>Vsa integration none? done?
>CodeDom integr. none? none?
>Test suite none? ?
>Both are missing Reflection.Emit support.
>Please, whoever knows better the status, change the table and post an
>Once it's known what is missing for the complete solution and what the two
>projects can reuse from each other the authors may have a better idea of
>what component of the complete solution may need a license change.
This table is correct for janet, with three comments:
* As you suggest, much of the code is in "pretty good shape", but none of it is completely "done".
* A few significant features of ECMAScript 3 are still missing, such as regular expressions and "eval". ("eval" would be trivial, except that it introduces some special rules for identifier binding in the evaluated code.)