Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't want it to give it away in public domain; instead I've added > the GPL copyright notice to it now. Since the module description says > LGPL, it effectively means the file is under LGPL.
Thanks. That sounds quite reasonable to me. (Like I said, my opinion was just a layman's one, and it's clearly a judgment call.) >> Bison is GPLed, but Bison puts a copyright notice (the GPL with a >> special exception) into the source-code files that it generates >> automatically. Users are of course free to modify Bison to emit a >> different license, but if they redistribute the resulting output in >> violation of the Bison terms, they are still in violation of >> Bison's license. > > Why would this be a violation of Bison's license? Because the bison > output contains a significant portion of bison code (not just data > generated from the input files and the DFA)? Yes, that's it. Bison's output contains a significant chunk of Bison code -- about 1300 lines in the traditional case of an LALR(1) parser written in C -- that are clearly copyrightable.
