Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3.14...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> If he doesn't respond, or outright refuses (which I, for one, doubt >> will happen), my fallback plan is to rewrite the JSON validation code >> by drawing from my original code (meaning it won't be in bison/flex) >> and post a patch for it. Unfortunately, it seems to me that there >> aren't very many ways of expressing a JSON parser in bison/flex, and >> thus the idea of JSON parsing with bison/flex is effectively locked >> down by the GPL unless we can get a more permissive license for >> jsonval. But, I am not a lawyer.
> If someone who hasn't looked at the GPL code sits down and codes > something up based on the json.org home page, it's hard to imagine how > anyone could be grumpy about that. Yeah. Joseph seems to be confusing copyrights with patents. The idea of "parse JSON with bison/flex" is not patentable by any stretch of the imagination. But having said that, I wonder whether bison/flex are really the best tool for the job in the first place. From what I understand of JSON (which admittedly ain't much) a bison parser seems like overkill: it'd probably be both bloated and slow compared to a simple handwritten recursive-descent parser. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers