opencxx-users

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: [Synopsis-devel] constant expression anal yzer and 'sizeof'

[Stefan S. <sse...@ar...>]

Hi David,

David Abrahams wrote:

>  sizeof(char) == 1
>  sizeof(char[2]) == 2
>  sizeof(char(&)[2]) == 2
>  sizeof(char[3]) == 3
>  sizeof(X[N]) == N * sizeof(X)
>
>There are programs that rely on these relationships.

This is the kind of invariants I'm looking for, thanks !

>You're going to need to build in full overload resolution and
>template instantiation capability, which is no small job.

[...]

>Even though it's a big job, it would be a great service to the C++
>community.  I could probably find people to help you with it.

That would be more than welcome. I'm currently refactoring
the C++ parser code adding support for this kind of analysis.
Progress can be tracked via the various unit tests I'm putting
into place.

I'd very much appreciate any help I could get in defining
what exactly needs to be done, and of course, in designing and
implementing it.

Best regards,
		Stefan

RE: [Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...>]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> > From: Grzegorz Jakacki [please don't expose my e-mail to spammers]
> > Sent: September 27, 2004 04:29
>
> > I don't understand what you are challenging. Clients have to
> > fulfill certain
> > obligations if they link against LGPL-ed library:
>
> [...]
>
>
> > Section 6:
>
> yes, that's exactly the point. As long as you fulfill these
> obligations you are fine. Do you see any problems with section 6 ?
[...]

Yes. Those obligations are an obstacle if you want to link commercial
software against LGPL-ed library. This is one of the reasons why Boost
rejects LGPL-ed source code:

  Commercial use is only permited for the binaries produced from LGPL source
  in a very restricted form. The end user must be permited to reproduce the
  binary form.[1]

BR
Grzegorz

[1] http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License_-_LGPL
    Legal analysis of the LGPL provided by Berkman Center for Internet &
    Society, Harvard Law School for Boost.

##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki                       Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept.              1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074               Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################

[Opencxx-users] Re: [Synopsis-devel] constant expression analyzer and 'sizeof'

[David A. <da...@bo...>]

Stefan Seefeld <sse...@ar...> writes:

> Hi there,
>
> I'm working on a constant expression analyzer
> to assist the C++ parser. It's working nicely
> so far. Here is what it already can deal with:
>
> http://synopsis.fresco.org/viewsvn/synopsis-Synopsis/trunk/tests/OpenCxx/Con
> stEvaluator/
>
> However, some cases are not as simple, and so
> I'd appreciate feedback: the 'sizeof' operator
> can be used in const expressions, and so I have
> to deal with it. 
> AFAIK each compiler has its own memory
> layout, and thus there's no standard algorithm
> to determine the size of an arbitrary type.
>
> On the other hand, there is no requirement for
> Synopsis / OpenC++ to be binary compatible with
> any other compiler, so may be this is a non-issue.

It's still an issue.  There are some things that are constant:

  sizeof(char) == 1
  sizeof(char[2]) == 2
  sizeof(char(&)[2]) == 2
  sizeof(char[3]) == 3
  sizeof(X[N]) == N * sizeof(X)

There are programs that rely on these relationships.

> Still, I need to provide some numbers when asked
> for the size of an object. Any ideas how to approach
> this ? Any references are highly appreciated !
>
> Regards,
> 		Stefan

You're going to need to build in full overload resolution and
template instantiation capability, which is no small job.

consider:

      template <class T>
      typename something<T>::type f(T&);
      
      char f(...);

      sizeof(f(g()));

If g returns a value, the result is 1.  If g returns a reference,
you'll call the first f, and you'll instantiate something<T> to find
out its return type.  Before you object, this sort of thing is very
common in the Boost libraries.

Even though it's a big job, it would be a great service to the C++
community.  I could probably find people to help you with it.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

[Opencxx-users] constant expression analyzer and 'sizeof'

[Stefan S. <sse...@ar...>]

Hi there,

I'm working on a constant expression analyzer
to assist the C++ parser. It's working nicely
so far. Here is what it already can deal with:

http://synopsis.fresco.org/viewsvn/synopsis-Synopsis/trunk/tests/OpenCxx/Con
stEvaluator/

However, some cases are not as simple, and so
I'd appreciate feedback: the 'sizeof' operator
can be used in const expressions, and so I have
to deal with it. 
AFAIK each compiler has its own memory
layout, and thus there's no standard algorithm
to determine the size of an arbitrary type.

On the other hand, there is no requirement for
Synopsis / OpenC++ to be binary compatible with
any other compiler, so may be this is a non-issue.

Still, I need to provide some numbers when asked
for the size of an object. Any ideas how to approach
this ? Any references are highly appreciated !

Regards,
		Stefan

RE: [Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[Stefan S. <sse...@ar...>]

Hi Grzegorz,

> From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@he...]
> Sent: September 27, 2004 04:29

> I don't understand what you are challenging. Clients have to 
> fulfill certain
> obligations if they link against LGPL-ed library:

[...]


> Section 6:

yes, that's exactly the point. As long as you fulfill these
obligations you are fine. Do you see any problems with section 6 ?
It seems to me to be mostly a technical question, i.e. as long
as you are able to either keep the LGPL-covered code in a dll
(and thus allow users to replace it as long as they stay binary 
compatible) or you distribute the necessary infrastructure (such
as the full source code) of the entire code to allow users to relink
it, you should be fine. I really don't see why this shouldn't be
possible.

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...>]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
>
> > Merging code enhancements means creating derivative work of code covered
> > by LGPL. Such work can only be distributed under LGPL (or GPL). This
>
> sorry, but that's entirely false, both, for GPL as well as LGPL.

Are you implying that I can create a derived work of LGPL code and
distribute it under license different from GPL and LGPL, e.g. existing
OpenC++ license?

> > means that you have to fulfill certain obligations if you want to
> > distribute a program that uses the library (see LGPL item 6)
>
> this isn't the same as what you said above. Nothing forces you to change
> your license just because you link to LGPL code.

I don't understand what you are challenging. Clients have to fulfill certain
obligations if they link against LGPL-ed library:

Section 5:

  (...) linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an
  executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
  portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
  The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms
  for distribution of such executables. (...)

Section 6:

  As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
  "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing
  portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your
  choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the
  customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
  modifications.

  You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library
  is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this
  License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during
  execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright
  notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the
  user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:

    a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable
       source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in
       the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above);
       and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the
       complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object
       code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and
       then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified
       Library.  (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
       definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to
       recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)

    b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library.
       A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
       library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
       copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate
       properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs
       one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the
       version that the work was made with.

    c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three
       years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection
       6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this
       distribution.

    d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a
       designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified
       materials from the same place.

    e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials
       or that you have already sent this user a copy.

  For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library"
  must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
  executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be
  distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
  either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
  and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
  that component itself accompanies the executable.

  It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions
  of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
  operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and
  the Library together in an executable that you distribute.

> It is true however that
> for the part of the code that is covered by LGPL you have to follow some
> rules (such as the ones you refer to).

Consequently, if I include part of your LGPL-ed code into OpenC++ I cannot
distribute the merged code under existing OpenC++ license.

> Also note that we are *not* talking about GPL here.

Of course. I mentioned GPL, because LGPL allows redistribution of the
library under LGPL *or* GPL (at redistributor's will). The statement "Such
work can only be distributed under LGPL" would be incorrect, thus I had to
mention GPL.

BR
Grzegorz

##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki                       Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept.              1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074               Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:

> Merging code enhancements means creating derivative work of code covered 
> by LGPL. Such work can only be distributed under LGPL (or GPL). This 

sorry, but that's entirely false, both, for GPL as well as LGPL.

> means that you have to fulfill certain obligations if you want to 
> distribute a program that uses the library (see LGPL item 6)

this isn't the same as what you said above. Nothing forces you to change
your license just because you link to LGPL code. It is true however that
for the part of the code that is covered by LGPL you have to follow some
rules (such as the ones you refer to).

Also note that we are *not* talking about GPL here.

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] OpenC++ License

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to think about a wording like the following.
> 
> 
>>[...] Any copy of this software or
>>of any derivative work must include the above copyright notice of   
>>Xerox Corporation, this paragraph and the one after it. [...]
> 
> 
> 1. The sentence specifies that this license variant must be repeated. 
 > Are there any legal reasons that allow to stop that repetition?

I don't think so anybody can do it without Xerox's aproval (relicensing).

> 2. Which code changes are not "derivative work" in this context?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
 >
> 3. How can license proliferation be resolved?

I am looking for lawyer's help on these issues.

BR
Grzegorz

[Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

SF Markus Elfring wrote:
[...]
> 
> Which properties or aspects of the LGPL deny or restrict to integrate code enhancements
 > from Synopsis into OpenC++?

Merging code enhancements means creating derivative work of code covered 
by LGPL. Such work can only be distributed under LGPL (or GPL). This 
means that you have to fulfill certain obligations if you want to 
distribute a program that uses the library (see LGPL item 6)

BR
Grzegorz

[Opencxx-users] encoding for arrays

[Stefan S. <sse...@ar...>]

hi there,

it appears the type encoding isn't correct, since it doesn't
account for the array dimensions. All arrays are simply encoded by a simple
'A'.

Would it make sense to modify it such that an array is represented
by 'A' <dim> '_', where <dim> is the (optional) dimension specifier ?

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] Can I use opencxx without system-wide installation?

[<se...@in...>]

On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 15:50, Grigorenko Dmitriy wrote:
> Hello!
>  
> I`ve downloaded opencxx 2.8 and typed
> ./configure
> make
>  
> Next, I tried to run opencxx by following
>  
> [grigorenko@cluster opencxx]$ ./occ2 --version
>  
> and got
> ./occ2: line 369: /usr/local/bin/occ: No such file or directory
>  
> Is it correct?
> Thank you
>  

Re: [Opencxx-users] OpenC++ License

[SF M. E. <el...@us...>]

Hello,

I would like to think about a wording like the following.

> [...] Any copy of this software or
> of any derivative work must include the above copyright notice of   
> Xerox Corporation, this paragraph and the one after it. [...]

1. The sentence specifies that this license variant must be repeated. Are there any legal reasons that allow to stop that repetition?

2. Which code changes are not "derivative work" in this context?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

3. How can license proliferation be resolved?

Best regards,
Markus Elfring

Re: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[SF M. E. <el...@us...>]

Hello,
 
> What you are doing is not a collaboration. If you want to keep your
> patches away from OpenC++, do it, you have a legal right to do so.

Which properties or aspects of the LGPL deny or restrict to integrate code enhancements from Synopsis into OpenC++?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [Opencxx-users] design sketches

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
>>to illustrate a little better my current ideas about the refactored
>>OpenC++ architecture, and to show what I'v been working on in Synopsis
>>over recent weeks, here is a little UML sketch:
>>
>>http://synopsis.fresco.org/docs/Tutorial/images/opencxx.png
> 
> 
> Error meessage:
> The requested URL ... was not found on this server.

sorry, I forgot that this was a dangerous place (the nightly build
will overwrite it). It's here now:

http://synopsis.fresco.org/opencxx.png

I should document this stuff in the tutorial some day...

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...>]

Stefan,

What you are doing is not a collaboration. If you want to keep your
patches away from OpenC++, do it, you have a legal right to do so.

> I believe this discussion has taken up enough bandwidth. Let's
> get on with our work. Let's get back to technical issues.

Before I reengage in thechnical discussion I would like to see how
resources I am going to invest in it will benefit OpenC++ project.

Best regards
Grzegorz


On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
>
> > Your modifications to OpenC++ are under LGPL and you do not agree to
> > contribute them back to OpenC++ under current OpenC++ license. This is
> > effectively an ultimatum saying that if we want to use your patches we
> > need to switch to *your* license.
>
> I believe you get it all backwards: it's the LGPL that ensures the continual
> freedom to use, modify, and distribute any changes. Your license essentially
> states it doesn't care who's doing what with the code.
> I find it surprising that you now care so much. I invite you to join in and
> use the LGPL, as I believe that it will be a better device for you to make sure
> all changes are 'given back'. ;-)
>
>
> >>>Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly
> >>>supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has
> >>>not taken place.
> >>
> >>I'v always developed under LGPL.
> >
> >
> > How does it apply?
>
> I'v integrated OpenC++ code into Synopsis about four to five years ago,
> and have ever since made modifications under LGPL. I simply intend to
> continue doing this. Nothing changes, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> So the 'honest discussion of licensing' you are talking about has to happen
> in your camp, not mine, if you want to use the code I develop.
> I encourage you to use my code, as long as you keep it freely available
> and modifiable, no matter how you distribute it. How's this unfair ?
>
> >>I'v also no problems incorporating
> >>minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself.
> >>
> >>However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch
> >>as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I
> >>find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I
> >>don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody
> >>with an 'ultimatum'.
> >
> >
> > Because you are expecting OpenC++ to bend to your model or else we cannot
> > use your patches. This is hardly a collaborative approach.
>
> I don't expect anything. I develop Synopsis, and I'd be more than
> happy to see people use and enhance it. If you believe my use of
> OpenCxx code is not correct, I encourage you to change *your* license to
> express in what way you'd want to restrict how people like me may use it.
>
> I believe this discussion has taken up enough bandwidth. Let's
> get on with our work. Let's get back to technical issues.
>
> Regards,
> 		Stefan
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
> Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
> who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
> Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
> _______________________________________________
> Opencxx-users mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opencxx-users
>
>

##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki                       Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept.              1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074               Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################

Re: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:

> Your modifications to OpenC++ are under LGPL and you do not agree to
> contribute them back to OpenC++ under current OpenC++ license. This is
> effectively an ultimatum saying that if we want to use your patches we
> need to switch to *your* license.

I believe you get it all backwards: it's the LGPL that ensures the continual
freedom to use, modify, and distribute any changes. Your license essentially
states it doesn't care who's doing what with the code.
I find it surprising that you now care so much. I invite you to join in and
use the LGPL, as I believe that it will be a better device for you to make sure
all changes are 'given back'. ;-)


>>>Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly
>>>supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has
>>>not taken place.
>>
>>I'v always developed under LGPL.
> 
> 
> How does it apply?

I'v integrated OpenC++ code into Synopsis about four to five years ago,
and have ever since made modifications under LGPL. I simply intend to
continue doing this. Nothing changes, as far as I'm concerned.

So the 'honest discussion of licensing' you are talking about has to happen
in your camp, not mine, if you want to use the code I develop.
I encourage you to use my code, as long as you keep it freely available
and modifiable, no matter how you distribute it. How's this unfair ?

>>I'v also no problems incorporating
>>minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself.
>>
>>However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch
>>as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I
>>find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I
>>don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody
>>with an 'ultimatum'.
> 
> 
> Because you are expecting OpenC++ to bend to your model or else we cannot
> use your patches. This is hardly a collaborative approach.

I don't expect anything. I develop Synopsis, and I'd be more than
happy to see people use and enhance it. If you believe my use of
OpenCxx code is not correct, I encourage you to change *your* license to
express in what way you'd want to restrict how people like me may use it.

I believe this discussion has taken up enough bandwidth. Let's
get on with our work. Let's get back to technical issues.

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] Can I use opencxx without system-wide installation?

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...>]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Grigorenko Dmitriy wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I`ve downloaded opencxx 2.8 and typed
> ./configure
> make
>
> Next, I tried to run opencxx by following
>
> [grigorenko@cluster opencxx]$ ./occ2 --version
>
> and got
>
> ./occ2: line 369: /usr/local/bin/occ: No such file or directory
>
> Is it correct?

Yes. occ2 needs to be installed (however occ2 is still highly
experimental, most likely it will be reimplemented, so that it can be run
natively on Windows).

You may install locally (i.e. not system-wide) by specifying --prefix=DIR
in invocation of ./configure.

BR
Grzegorz

##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki                       Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept.              1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074               Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################

RE: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...>]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

[...]
> > Also step back and look at this situation: OpenC++ has a specific
> > non-standard license which is in place for many years (you
> > contributed
> > under it yourself). However now you confront the OpenC++
> > community with
> > ultimatum "you have to switch to LGPL or you wouldn't get
> > patches from
> > Synopsis".
>
> How's this an ultimatum ?

Your modifications to OpenC++ are under LGPL and you do not agree to
contribute them back to OpenC++ under current OpenC++ license. This is
effectively an ultimatum saying that if we want to use your patches we
need to switch to *your* license.

> > Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly
> > supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has
> > not taken place.
>
> I'v always developed under LGPL.

How does it apply?

> I'v also no problems incorporating
> minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself.
>
> However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch
> as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I
> find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I
> don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody
> with an 'ultimatum'.

Because you are expecting OpenC++ to bend to your model or else we cannot
use your patches. This is hardly a collaborative approach.

> > Would you agree to contribute your patches under OpenC++ license if
> > OpenC++ has a standard OSI-approved or Boost license?
>
> I'v already answered this question. Let's see how the discussion goes.
> I'd very much appreciate if we found a solution that makes it possible
> for me to keep my code under LGPL.

What is your point in all this? Why don't you keep Synopsis under whatever
license you want, but donate OpenC++ patches back to OpenC++ under its
license? That would be fair to give back to this project as you leverage
it in yours.

BR
Grzegorz

##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki                       Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept.              1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074               Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################

[Opencxx-users] design sketches

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

hi there,

to illustrate a little better my current ideas about the refactored
OpenC++ architecture, and to show what I'v been working on in Synopsis
over recent weeks, here is a little UML sketch:

http://synopsis.fresco.org/docs/Tutorial/images/opencxx.png

The central piece is the PTree module. It contains the different building
blocks for the parse tree, which is constructed by the Parser. The parse
tree is inspected by the PTree::Visitor, which is the primary means for
the PTree users to extract information, but which is used by the Parser
internally, too (const expression evaluation, notably).

The AST module ('abstract syntax tree') is basically a convenient
high-level view on the parse tree.
It makes it easy to inspect the code by users, and is conceptually similar
(though quite a bit more expressive) than the current Synopsis AST. It
may replace the latter, or just be an alternative, I'm not sure yet.

The MOP module ('meta object protocol') provides tools to modify the underlaying
code. It can either operate by external rules that express how to replace
existing parse tree nodes by new ones, or it can hook up with tokens
that are embedded into the original source code ('metaclass' comes to mind).

I'm currently working on the PTree module, trying to make the Parser
work 'more correctly', by adding ptree analysis tools such as a symbol
lookup table ('Symbol' and 'Scope' replace 'Binding' and 'Environment',
but are fully independent of 'TypeInfo' and 'Class'), or a const expression
evaluator. These devices will allow to fully disambiguate expressions such as

foo < 1 > (0);

as well as type declarations such as

enum {ONE = 1, TWO};
typedef Array1[2][ONE];
typedef Array2[2][TWO];

I encourage everybody to get involved, the code is documented here:
http://synopsis.fresco.org/docs/Manual/occ/index.html

(you can watch the changelog here: http://synopsis.fresco.org/changelog.html)

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] Can I use opencxx without system-wide installation?

[Mathieu R. <rog...@fr...>]

Grigorenko Dmitriy wrote:

> Hello!
>  
> I`ve downloaded opencxx 2.8 and typed
> ./configure
> make
>  
> Next, I tried to run opencxx by following
>  
> [grigorenko@cluster opencxx]$ ./occ2 --version
>  
> and got
>
> ./occ2: line 369: /usr/local/bin/occ: No such file or directory
>  
> Is it correct?
> Thank you
>
>  

one solution is in ./configure --help

you can install any program in a location of your choice by using
./configure --prefix= LOCATION
and then make, make install

regards

[Opencxx-users] Can I use opencxx without system-wide installation?

[Grigorenko D. <pos...@na...>]

Hello!

I`ve downloaded opencxx 2.8 and typed
./configure
make

Next, I tried to run opencxx by following

[grigorenko@cluster opencxx]$ ./occ2 --version

and got

./occ2: line 369: /usr/local/bin/occ: No such file or directory

Is it correct?
Thank you

RE: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[Stefan S. <sse...@ar...>]

> From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...]
> Sent: September 21, 2004 12:34

> Whether OpenC++ will be distributed under LGPL depends on the 
> outcome of 
> the discussion which will take place in this forum.

excellent.

> For the records: I have never voted for or against LGPL; this is only 
> your asumption that "LGPL conditions make the code unusable for" me. 

Sorry if I got things backwards, but you said in another mail that you
would not have been able to use OpenC++ in your job would it be distributed
under LGPL.

> Moreover, I have not opposed changing OpenC++ license if there is a 
> consensus about it.

Good.

> You seem to ignore the fact that changing OpenC++ license 
> CANNOT HAPPEN 
> OVERNIGHT and requires negotiations with Xerox Co. You also 
> ignore the 
> fact that last week I wrote that I am about to start the process of 
> standardizing OpenC++ license in the end of this week.

I'm quite aware of it, and I'm glad you started this discussion (let's
hope it will stay on-topic and lead to a conclusion).
I know that such a process takes some time. I'v never asked you or anybody
else to change the license of the code that's currently in your repository,
and I'v especially not asked to make it 'happen overnight'.

> Also step back and look at this situation: OpenC++ has a specific 
> non-standard license which is in place for many years (you 
> contributed 
> under it yourself). However now you confront the OpenC++ 
> community with 
> ultimatum "you have to switch to LGPL or you wouldn't get 
> patches from 
> Synopsis".

How's this an ultimatum ?

> Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly 
> supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has 
> not taken place.

I'v always developed under LGPL. I'v also no problems incorporating
minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself.

However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch
as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I
find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I
don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody
with an 'ultimatum'.

> Would you agree to contribute your patches under OpenC++ license if 
> OpenC++ has a standard OSI-approved or Boost license?

I'v already answered this question. Let's see how the discussion goes.
I'd very much appreciate if we found a solution that makes it possible 
for me to keep my code under LGPL.

Regards,
		Stefan

PS: as far as 'collaboration' is concerned, it is my sincere hope that
    even if diverging opinions concerning license issues will not let
    us share code, we are still able to share ideas.

[Opencxx-users] IMPORTANT: OpenC++ License

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

Hi Everybody,

As you know OpenC++ has a specific, non-standard license (attached). 
Non-standard license may pose problems for projects using OpenC++ 
(especially proprietary ones), since determining legal consequeneces of 
license text may be non-trivial. However, well-known open-source 
licenses have been carefully analyzed, thus such licenses are generally 
considered safer than non-standard ones.

Also issues of compatibility between well-known licenses are understood, 
which potentialy makes it simpler to determine if and how code can be 
moved from one license to another. (Recently this occured to be an issue 
with code moved between OpenC++ and Synopsis.)

Having said that, OpenC++ could benefit from changing its license to a 
well-known one. This is a serious move, thus I would like to solicit 
your opinion on this matter, in particular:

   * whether OpenC++ should move to standard license?
   * which license should OpenC++ choose?

The new license would cover future releases of OpenC++, as obviously 
license on released files cannot be changed retroactively. Where 
necessary relicensing may need to be negotiated with entities holding 
copyright on the source code (Chiba, Xerox, others). It is possible that 
legal advice will be necessary to determine the necessary actions. If 
so, I will try to seek help from community organizations supporting 
open-source movement.

I would like to ask all of you to give this matter a consideration and

     POST YOUR OPINION ON THIS LIST
     before Wed, September 29, 2004

In particular, I would like to recommend the following licenses for 
consideration as potential target license for OpenC++:

   * MIT  (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
   * LGPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php)
   * Boost (http://boost.c-view.org/more/license_info.html)

If you have any interest in OpenC++ project and its future, please spend 
  a few minutes on this issue and don't hesitate to post your opinion. 
THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Best regards
Grzegorz (OpenC++ Project Admin)

Re: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Hi Grzegorz,
> 
> 
>>From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...]
>>Sent: September 21, 2004 10:43
> 
> 
>>You used OpenC++ code for the benefit of your project, 
>>however now you 
>>are effectively blocking OpenC++ from using its own 
>>derivatives present 
>>in your project's code.
>>
>>You certainly realize that OpenC++ cannot change its license 
>>overnight, 
>>especially that it involves negotations with Xerox Co. If you were 
>>really thinking about sharing code between OpenC++ and Synopsis both 
>>ways, and at the same time were indeed concerned about 
>>OpenC++ license, 
>>you could have raised the issue several months ago, when you were 
>>talking to Chiba about distributing his changes under LGPL. For some 
>>reason you decided to keep this issue off the mailing list.
> 
> 
> Wait a minute. The 'OpenC++ code' we are talking about here has
> two copyright holders, Chiba and Xerox. Chiba agreed to relicense
> under LGPL, and the Xerox code is being phased out right now.

Have I said otherwise?

> Please don't construct some conspiracy around this. 

What conspiracy?

> It is very
> unfortunate that you believe the LGPL conditions make the code
> unusable for you, but that's something you have to live with.
 >
> It's you who doesn't want to give the freedoms that are tied into
> LGPL to others.

Whether OpenC++ will be distributed under LGPL depends on the outcome of 
the discussion which will take place in this forum.

For the records: I have never voted for or against LGPL; this is only 
your asumption that "LGPL conditions make the code unusable for" me. 
Moreover, I have not opposed changing OpenC++ license if there is a 
consensus about it.

You seem to ignore the fact that changing OpenC++ license CANNOT HAPPEN 
OVERNIGHT and requires negotiations with Xerox Co. You also ignore the 
fact that last week I wrote that I am about to start the process of 
standardizing OpenC++ license in the end of this week.

> This finger pointing isn't very constructive, so I'd suggest we either 
> stop this aspect of the discussion, or at least take it offline. 
> I asked last week whether anybody had issues with the LGPL, and you 
> were the only one who voiced his disagreement.

There were voices againt GNU licenses in the past. Please also note that 
nobody voiced agreement.

Let me bring this issue on the list in a separate thread.

>>I understand that you have the legal right not to relicense 
>>your changes 
>>under OpenC++ license and thus block their incorporation back into 
>>OpenC++. However in my opinion this is unfair, counterproductive and 
>>certainly not in the spirit of open source community. And, 
>>above all, it 
>>can be hardly called a "cooperation" between the projects.
> 
> 
> It is highly demagogical and polemic to accuse LGPL for being 
> counter-productive and 'not in the spirit of open source'. 

Please read my post again. I am not accusing LGPL of anything. I just 
claim that your decision of not allowing changes to be merged back into 
OpenC++ under its current license is unfair, counterproductive and 
certainly not in the spirit of open source community.

Also step back and look at this situation: OpenC++ has a specific 
non-standard license which is in place for many years (you contributed 
under it yourself). However now you confront the OpenC++ community with 
ultimatum "you have to switch to LGPL or you wouldn't get patches from 
Synopsis". Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly 
supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has not taken place.

Would you agree to contribute your patches under OpenC++ license if 
OpenC++ has a standard OSI-approved or Boost license?

Best regards
Grzegorz

RE: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[SF M. E. <el...@us...>]

> Wait a minute. The 'OpenC++ code' we are talking about here has
> two copyright holders, Chiba and Xerox. Chiba agreed to relicense
> under LGPL, and the Xerox code is being phased out right now.

Was this agreement published anywhere?

Are other license variants acceptable?
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

Regards,
Markus