Your response time is awesome :) Thanks a lot, I think I have all the info I need.
If not, I come back to you. Adieu and have a nice time, Johannes Veit Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> schrieb am Mi., 12. Apr. 2023, 13:24: > [Please cc the Bison list, as others can follow the issue and tune in if > needed.] > > > On 12 Apr 2023, at 11:18, Johannes Veit <leerstr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello and sorry for the long pause and tanks for your explanation!It > makes sense, but I don’t see a proper connection to the Bison Exception. > > In my understanding of the text, the exception comes in place, when I > (as a user of bison) going to build an own parser generator using bison. > … > > My interpretation is, that it is more than protecting the rights of the > skeletons, it is rather a protection against a forked* parser generator > under e.g. proprietary terms. > > *forked=>I know, that it is not forking in the sense of forking a repo. > What I mean is: using bison to generate it, instead of writing it with own > hands > > In my interpretation, there are two parts: > > The skeleton file contains handwritten parts which are subject to > copyright, and in normal use is copied over to the generated parser. So one > wants to avoid the full GPL to apply, thereby restricting the copyright of > the program it is a part of. The same thing is used for C/C++ libraries: > you can write and compile, if you so will, proprietary programs using GCC > and distribute them without GPL applying to them. > > In addition, for special use, one may copy the whole skeleton, modify it, > and include it in a program, as though it was LGPL, but not if that program > is in itself a parser generator that generats parsers; then the full GPL > will apply for that program. > > This latter, to make ones own edited skeleton file, I do not recommend > unless it is really needed, because it may change between Bison versions, > and it is hard to keep it in sync. So it is better trying to get special > feature into the Bison project. > > >
