23 Jul
2012
23 Jul
'12
9:56 p.m.
+1
Now what should I use ? InMoose that I do not control, or VerveineJ.... that is not open
source ?
This is stupid but maybe, I should write mine :)
Jannik
On Jul 23, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Sure. But, you see, even Jannik who is an Moose
insider misunderstood
the status of VerveineJ. This means we have to be more clear somehow.
I added now explicitly a line saying that there is a commercial license.
Should I remove the pointer of how to checkout the source as well?
Doru
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
<stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
---
Jannik Laval
For us we will continue to work on verveineJ and
the license will stay like that for a while until we know were we go.
So for us verveineJ is important because we can control it, fix it…
Stef
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi Jannik,
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > Some questions:
> - is there any reason to support vervainJ instead of InFamix ? Would it make sense to
support both ?
This is a long discussion. I know that VerveinJ works fine. It is open-soure and
well-maintained.
Maybe Nicolas Anquetil has already done a comparison between the two importers.
Unfortunately, VerveineJ is not open-source. It is at the moment
available to be used, but as it stands, the license is not specified
at all. This is why the page says that you should contact Stef for
getting information about the license. It would be great to clarify
this point to avoid confusion in the future :).
Cheers,
Doru
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev