FancyPars

[Bastiaan Veelo via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 at 20:32:59 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 September 2015 at 16:55:42 UTC, John Colvin 
> wrote:
>
>> Assuming you wrote it all, you can license the code in 
>> whatever way you want. See http://choosealicense.com for more 
>> info. You can even use multiple licenses, or different 
>> licenses for different parts of the code.
>
> Hmm reading this. No license, is best for now.

Take your time, but without a license anyone cloning or forking 
your repo is in fact violating your copyright. It is not what 
most people expect on github, and I will have to delete my fork 
and local clone...

> @Bastiaan
>   The FancyPars Grammar for pascal will look very very 
> different from what you wrote.
>   In FancyPars Grammars I worked very hard to avoid repetitions.
>   FGPs do not just describe the language grammar. They are 
> describing the AST-Structure.
>   So just by reading the grammar a person working with the AST 
> will know what is what and in which members-variables of the 
> AST-Node which information is stored.

I can see the value of that when designing a grammar, or building 
a translator. In my case though the grammar was standardised a 
quarter of a century ago, and available in BNF. Redefining the 
complete language in FPG by hand would be interesting but time 
consuming and error prone -- not sure that would pay in the end. 
Maybe writing a BNF2FPG transcompiler would get me there faster...

But, without a license I am prohibited from experimenting with 
it. Even with permission for educational purposes or the like, 
which I think you have implied, I am not sure that I will be 
allowed to construct a transcompiler intended for the translation 
of proprietary source in the end.

I am afraid I can't afford the time to investigate the 
possibilities of FancyPars until legal uncertainties are resolved.

Maybe you could consider to make the core of FancyPars Open 
Source with one of the mainstream licenses, without further 
restrictions. The parts that you want to keep proprietary I would 
not publish at all. That way, if somebody else decides to write 
an analyser, he will not risk infringing the copyright of your 
closed source, because it is not publicly viewable.

Best,
Bastiaan.