While it isn't useful for retaining the name of the constructor itself,
as they don't really have names, it will be useful for tracking argument
names and positions.
Signed-off-by: Graham <gpe@openrs2.dev>
I'm intending to use this in a patched version of Fernflower to track
the original index of each local variable's STORE instruction, allowing
us to retain local variable names even if the deobfuscator is run
multiple times.
I've been considering this for a long time, and have decided to switch to it at
the last minute before opening the repository up publicly. My reasons include:
* It's a much simpler license. GPL's complexity adds some risk - for example, it
might be incompatible with future open-source licenses (like the well-known
GPLv2/Apache v2 incompatibility problem). The "or any later version" clause
requires placing some trust in the Free Software Foundation.
* The simplicity makes it easier for people to understand and comply with the
license.
* Dishonest users who disobey the GPL would have an advantage over honest users
who refuse to do so. The ISC license provides a much more even playing field.
* OpenRS2 will primarily be server software accessible over a network. As such,
the GPL can do little to prevent use of the code in a proprietary system, as
the code is never distributed. (While the AGPL would fix this, I have already
discounted it. Enforcement would be too difficult and dishonest users would
have an unfair advantage.)
* It's much easier to switch to a stricter license in future versions, if it
turns out that is desirable (as the ISC license allows users to sublicense
the code). However, switching from the GPL to the ISC license requires all
copyright holders to grant permission.
* Other open-source projects in the community, such as Apollo, use the ISC
license and will be able to make use of OpenRS2 code if they so desire.
I've removed the FAQ entry about the reasons for using the GPL license, as I
think the ISC license is less controversial and therefore does not require an
entry.
I've discussed this with Desetude, and he's okay with his commit being
relicensed.
I've been thinking about this for a while. On the one hand, using the
"or later" clause means we have to place some trust in the Free Software
Foundation. On the other hand, being able to adopt newer versions of the
license without having to contact all contributors is useful for
compatibility (e.g. Apache 2 and GPLv3).
I recently noticed that Section 14 states that new versions of the
license will be "similar in spirit" to the current version. I think this
reduces the amount of trust we need to place in the FSF, as I'd hope
that if a future license did diverge too much from the original spirit
that a court might not consider it valid.
Furthermore, if the FSF went totally crazy, there are many bigger and
more important projects who would experience the same problem.
Graham