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.
-- Sylvain
_______________________________________________ Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
