Indus (was Re: [Soot-list] my question about Soot)

[Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath]

On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 14:14 -0500, Chris Pickett wrote:

> Hey Venkatesh,
> 
> Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:57 -0500, Chris Pickett wrote:
> >> I guess I'm just gonna keep replying-to-self ad infinitum.
> >>
> >> Of course I forgot, the GPL is LGPL copy-and-paste compatible, since you 
> >> can convert LGPL to GPL, but you can't go the other direction.  So if 
> >> you wanted to cannibalize the Soot code base you could go that route, 
> >> but hmmm, that doesn't seem to help us out over here at all.
> >>
> >> Licensing gives me a headache.  OK, maybe I already had the headache. 
> >> Maybe I should go to bed.
> > 
> > Hi Chris,
> > 
> > Currently, the source of Kaveri (eclipse plugin) has been released under 
> > academic source licensing as we had done Bogor in the past.  Also, the 
> > stock groovy scripts available with Kaveri have been released under 
> > MPL.  So far, there have been no issues.
> > 
> > As for open sourcing Indus, I am evaluating various open source licenses 
> > that would allow contributors to modify Indus and, at the same time, 
> > "release" such contributions to be integrated into Indus.  May be, I 
> > might eventually choose a more liberal license such as BSD or MIT or 
> > even LGPL.
> 
> My reason for suggesting the LGPL in particular is that it will let 
> Indus copy Soot source code and release it as part of Indus, and it will 
> let Soot copy Indus source code and release it as part of Soot.
> 
> If you choose BSD or MIT, you cannot incorporate the Soot source code 
> into Indus.  If you choose GPL, we cannot incorporate the Indus source 
> code into Soot.
> 
> The reason I think sharing source code between the two projects might be 
> useful is that they both operate on Jimple.  This is speculation, since 
> I haven't seen the Indus source code, but based on the analyses 
> described on your web page it seems like the feature sets of the two 
> frameworks are somewhat orthogonal, which makes a better case for 
> sharing than if they were completely overlapping.
> 
> Anyway, your forum post asked for input, so there you go.


Thanks for the input!  I thought all LGPL, BSD, and MIT were compatible
in terms of free-ness, reuse, modification, and distribution; however,
your comment indicates otherwise.  I'll look into these issues as I plow
my way through the licenses.

As for BSD and MIT, I just mentioned them in passing; I haven't decided
to use them.

Again, thanks for the input,

-- 

Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath 
e-id: venkateshprasad.ranganath [at] gmail.com 
e-id: rvprasad [at] ksu.edu
web:  http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~rvprasad
blog: http://venkateshthinks.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.CS.McGill.CA/pipermail/soot-list/attachments/20061117/5a289094/attachment.htm