[Push] pushtalk

[Lee Spector]

On licenses: I usually ignore this issue :-( which is probably not 
good, but I'm happy to go with the collective wisdom. Unless anyone 
else thinks GPL is a bad idea then that would be fine with me.

  -Lee

On Jul 26, 2004, at 5:29 AM, Maarten wrote:

> On Monday 26 July 2004 00:49, Lee Spector wrote:
>> I assume that Maarten is willing to share the code now, and I
>> know we're planning to make it open source soon... but I'm not
>> sure where we are in that process... Maarten?
>
> Haven't opened up a sourceforge entry yet, mainly because I'm not
> sure what license to put it under, or under what name. I'm usually
> in favour of using GPL or LGPL. There are various trade-offs to
> consider with this: GPL means that anyone that distributes anything
> with the push implementation in it should also make their own
> add-ons open source. LGPL means that they only have to distribute
> in source their modifications to the push implementation.
>
> I would suggest using GPL as it would not hurt any academic or
> non-commercial work.
>
> Then, a sourceforge project name. Unfortunately 'push' is already
> taken by the Perl User SHell. What about
>
> o push-language
> o push-lang
> o ???
>
> I was also considering push-c++, but we might want to consider
> putting other implementations of push there as well (e.g., Lee's
> lisp code).
>
> So, license and name. Any comments?
>
> -Maarten-
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Push mailing list
> Push at lists.hampshire.edu
> http://lists.hampshire.edu/mailman/listinfo/push
>
>
--
Lee Spector
Dean, Cognitive Science + Professor, Computer Science
Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 01002
lspector at hampshire.edu, http://hampshire.edu/lspector/
Phone: 413-559-5352, Fax: 413-559-5438