Legal/Permission Question

[Dan]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > In that case, I won't look at Walter's code when I write the functions.  Although I must admit, I am a maintainer of Walnut 1.x, which is released under a GPL; and derived from Walter's work.
> > 
> > I haven't touched any of the *methods* yet, nor significantly looked at them.  Additionally, Walnut 2.x is vastly different from DMDScript in implementation - about as different as it can get considering they're both ECMAScript in D.
> > 
> > Considering I'm only doing this as a hobby, out of the goodness of my heart, paying the $25,000 or whatnot license and working something out with Walter is well beyond the budget.
> 
> Nobody said $25,000!!!
> 
> > I'll examine some other ECMAScript licenses, and see if any are more compatible.  I tend to find I write more effective code when I can see what's wrong with someone else's.  The methods themselves tend to be very predictable from one engine to the next, since their external behavior is predefined, and they all need to follow the same arguments.  I was just hoping to cut bug hunting time.
> > 
> > Oh well.
> 
> Why not just use GPL?

Well, I had this crazy notion that if it was put under a BSD license, and actually pulled off it being the best engine out there...

I just figured it would be awesome to develop the *best* scripting engine and release it so absolutely everyone can use it.  IE: make a drop-in for JScript, Mozilla's JavaScript, Qtscript, and bind to ActiveX, DLL's, and DDL's.

All that flexibility would require the core engine be written first, and alot of version'ing things off, as well as having dll, com server, and command prompt mains.

If it were done well, licensed BSD, and properly promoted, I just think it would make for a revival of what's currently the most used scripting language in the world.