atom feed5 messages in com.motion-twin.lists.haxe[haXe] Re: Haxe License - Post-Compil...
FromSent OnAttachments
Charles PritchardDec 16, 2009 1:17 am 
Juraj KirchheimDec 16, 2009 3:39 am 
Pimm HogelingDec 16, 2009 3:39 am 
Charles PritchardDec 16, 2009 9:25 am 
Pimm HogelingDec 16, 2009 11:23 am 
Subject:[haXe] Re: Haxe License - Post-Compilation
From:Charles Pritchard (chu@jumis.com)
Date:Dec 16, 2009 1:17:40 am
List:com.motion-twin.lists.haxe

Hello list.

It seems to me that there is a conflict between licensing statements:

"The license of the compiler does not affect the license of your own source code. If you use haXe and the haXe compiler it is not required that you release your work under a free open source software license." And "The /haXe libraries/ are released under a "two-clause" *BSD license*. This license grants you the right to use the libraries providing only that you include a copyright notice in the end-product."

Source: http://haxe.org/doc/license

I believe that the haXe compiler always includes some portion of the haXe libraries in its output, to varying degrees. Thus, without a lot of manual editing, the output requires BSD license attribution.

Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

Charles Pritchard a écrit :

In the absence of any import statements: "StringTools", "Reflect", "*.Boot" and some other classes are always included.

These seem to require that all output run through the haxe compiler include "Haxe" license notices. Can we clean up the source code on those particular libraries to release them under Public license?

Hi,

haXe output files does not have any specific license. As you noticed, on the source files that are being compiled might carry licensing restriction. As for haXe standard library, it's been released with classic BSD style license which is quite permitive already.

There seem to be a few required classes that haXe uses in all output, depending on the target language. It seems like the inclusion of these classes (without manually stripping them out, and replacing them), necessarily means that the BSD banner must be distributed with the code.

We might consider at some time to move from BSD to Public Domain but that's not something that I can decide alone right away. Maybe you should ask on the haXe mailing list to see what other people think about it ?

Currently, haxe strips the licensing code anyway, and few people are likely to know that their "js" file (or swf, or php file) requires BSD attribution.

I'd like to see a few source files released as Public Domain / CC Zero, to clear up possible confusion here.

It should only be the absolute minimum required for a build: "Type" is a good example.

-Charles