12
I made a thing. (codeberg.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/52336135

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 2 years ago

For those who don't want to click the link for context:

OA Tree-Sitter language.

A small langauge that can be used to generate tree-sitter grammar without JS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think you need to put the actual license text in the repository, to have a license. Just stating a license name in the readme is not correctly licensed. In example people need to a websearch for this accronym in order to find their rights and who knows if they find the correct license. Maybe they find a different written one by another person. In example there are two "official" versions of this license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't really want to clutter the repo with something so frivolous. If they were links or an SPDX ID would that be enough?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think its enough to link. You just need to copy or create a single txt file named "LICENSE" and put it in the root of your repository. I am not a lawyer. The license text will tell anyone who cares to know what they can do and cannot with the project. If you do not do that, you only make it harder for anyone looking for the license (as explained with the websearch example previously).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    There's no law specifying where the license should be. A link to a page with the license is more than enough. Though if the link ever becomes invalid or shows something else, the license is lost. That's why copying it with the source code is the best bet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In many countries in the world it makes a huge difference to not having a license. If its not properly licensed or licensed at all, then it means in many countries in the world the most restrictive one, the entire opposite of the goal: Do not use without permission. By not putting the license text and clearing things up for the user, means it is not properly licensed. Therefore in countries like Germany this project would be a violation to use without permission. It becomes a liability, as the person could potentially sue anyone (in those countries).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm intending to use this for a custom language "OA" that I want to compile to Rust and JS to start with.

    I don't know enough about LLVM to compile directly to machine code although I would like to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago

    Thanks!

    I intend for the language to have a similar borrow checker and type system. Which is why I'm targeting rust. It means I have something to check against when writing the tooling. (Although I'm not sure I'll get that far. My computer is littered with dead projects).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent