Bug#272867: [Bug-gnulib] missing licenses in gnulib

[Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> 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.