hi,
since the inclusion of PCRE is still not done, i want to discuss the one question that has not been conclusively addressed: the license.
http://www.pcre.org/license.txt
the last discussion ended with the comment that the points 1. 2. and 3. still apply because of the mpl.
my opinion is that these points do not conflict with the mpl. and in particular the last paragraph of #2 allows anybody to include pike without limitations through pcre.
so the only thing holding us back is someone to take pcre and prepare it for pike 7.5 so that it can be tested...
i am repeating the points for your convenience. full license is under the url above.
greetings, martin.
from: http://www.pcre.org/license.txt 1. This software is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by explicit claim or by omission. In practice, this means that if you use PCRE in software that you distribute to others, commercially or otherwise, you must put a sentence like this
Regular expression support is provided by the PCRE library package, which is open source software, written by Philip Hazel, and copyright by the University of Cambridge, England.
somewhere reasonably visible in your documentation and in any relevant files or online help data or similar. A reference to the ftp site for the source, that is, to
ftp://ftp.csx.cam.ac.uk/pub/software/programming/pcre/
should also be given in the documentation. However, this condition is not intended to apply to whole chains of software. If package A includes PCRE, it must acknowledge it, but if package B is software that includes package A, the condition is not imposed on package B (unless it uses PCRE independently).
3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.