At 10:53 +0100 2005/03/10, Sylvain Schmitz wrote: >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. > >This looks to me as a problem of competitive advantage: if bison was one >of the only programs providing C++ or GLR parsers generation, it could >be seen as a way to promote GPLed software. It might have been true >when these skeleton first appeared, but I don't think it is any more, >since both commercial and open source implementations exist now. In >which case it seems to me that the opposite attitude is better, that is >promote the use of bison with an unrestrictive license on the skeletons, >and hope it will promote the use of other open source software.
One other way to view this is that the output of a copyrighted program is rarely viewed as being covered by the copyright of the program that made it. Take, for example, the text-files produced by a copyrighted program. Hans Aberg _______________________________________________ Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
