Re: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib
Bruno Haible <email@example.com> 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.