[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question about "Conditions for Using Bison" in Bison 2.0 documentati

From: Hans Aberg
Subject: Re: Question about "Conditions for Using Bison" in Bison 2.0 documentation
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:35:17 +0100
User-agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6

It would simplify if the supported Bison skeleton files were distributed
under the same copyright. The unsupported skeleton files, if any, should be
put in a special place, either in the distribution, or outside it, I think.

At 12:50 -0800 2005/03/09, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
>In fact, this issue did get discussed when the GLR skeleton got
>introduced, and the language (or lack of it) is, AIR, deliberate on
>the part of the lead maintainers at the time.  On consideration, I
>would prefer that the same terms apply to all skeletons as now apply
>to the C LALR(1) skeleton.  I think that there does come a point at
>which copylefting becomes shooting oneself in the foot.
>The best presentation I've seen of the GPL for the corporate audience
>goes something like this:
>    If your lawyer takes a look at the GPL, he should say something
>    like, "Hmm, well this appears to be a pretty ordinary license that
>    allows us to use this software under certain conditions.
>    Hello---my word, these conditions certainly are liberal.
>    Apparently, we don't have to pay any royalties (unlike your typical
>    Microsoft license), we are free to reverse engineer (unlike your
>    typical Microsoft license), to examine the source (UYTML),
>    to modify (UYTML), to redistribute (UYTML), and even to
>    publicly vilify (UYTML)."
>How strange then that use of the OUTPUT from using such a program
>should be more strictly controlled than is the output of MS Word!
>In short, I am strongly in favor of making the terms of use for Bison
>output uniformly liberal across skeletons.
>Paul Hilfinger
> > This is most likely an error: The other skeleton files did not exist at the
> > time that stuff was written. Akim Demaille is resposnible for the C++ file
> > and Paul Hilfinger for the GLR file. They probably forgot to insert the
> > correct copyright. If so, this is a Bug-Bison issue.
> > 
> > At 14:28 +0100 2005/03/09, Michel Rosien wrote:
> > >    Hello, =A0 I have read the "Conditions for Using Bison" on  page 3 of t
> > e
> > Bison 2.0 documentation. The first lines say: =A0 <quote> As of Bison versio
> > 1.24, we have changed the  distribution terms for yyparse to permit using
> > Bison's output in nonfree  programs when Bison is generating C code for
> > LALR(1) parsers <end quote> =A0 Does this mean that=A0this only applies when
> > using the skeleton file=A0yacc.c and that this NOT applies when using the
> > skeleton files glr.c or lalr1.cc? This would mean that you can not make glr
> > parsers (%glr-parser) or c++ parsers if you want to use the output in
> > nonfree  programs. =A0 The last lines of the "Conditions for using Bison"
> > mention:  <quote> You can tell whether the exception applies to your  '.c'
> > output file by inspecting it to see whether it says  "As a special
> > exception, when this file is copied  by Bison into a Bison output file, you
> > may use that output file without  restriction." <end quote> =A0 If I inspect
> > the skeleton files yacc.c , glr.c and  lalr1.cc I see that only yacc.c
> > contains this text. =A0 Is this correct? If so, could you explain why this
> > distinction is made? =A0 Regards, =A0
> > --Michel_______________________________________________
> > >address@hidden http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
> > 
> > 
> > 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]