Re: changes to special exception in Bison-generated parsers; 2.2 soon

[Akim Demaille]

Le 9 mai 06 à 11:54, Paul Eggert a écrit :

> Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > It is not clear to me why you chose not to install the exception in
> > b4_copyright itself.  Is it to have it cover the skeleton itself too?
> > In that case, wouldn't it be clearer to have the exception included
> > in the (m4 commented) copyright notice on top of the files?
>
> The exception needs to be copied to the output file, e.g., to
> parse-gram.c.  Otherwise, it will look as if we're slapping the
> GPL on the output file, since the GPL is already there.

Yes, I agree, that's why in the first part of the paragraph I
had suggested to include the exception snippet in the definition
of b4_copyright (in c.m4) instead of doing in by hand in every
single skeleton.

# b4_copyright(TITLE, YEARS)
# --------------------------
m4_define([b4_copyright],
[/* A Bison parser, made by GNU Bison b4_version.  */

/* $1,
   Copyright (C) $2 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
   any later version.

   This program 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.  See the
   GNU General Public License for more details.

   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
   along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
   Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor,
   Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.  */])


> > Also, if the consensus is not to put author names, I'd prefer remove
> > mine too :)
>
> I tried to regularize the author-name placement.  Sorry, I didn't know
> there was any consensus (or any disagreement) about whether author
> names should be in the skeletons.  Personally I'd leave them out, but
> it's not a big deal either way.

Ah!  I misread the change, I thought you had removed them all, but you
removed them from the headers, right?  We can do as you wish.  We could
also have b4_copyright depend on predefined macros  
b4_copyright_authors and
b4_copyright_dates to avoid this duplication (in the sources).