|justify use of flex vs. lex - summary firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-01)|
|Re: justify use of flex vs. lex - summary email@example.com (1993-02-04)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Vern Paxson)|
|Organization:||Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA|
|Date:||Thu, 4 Feb 1993 03:44:22 GMT|
email@example.com (Steve Layten x3451) writes:
> one person ... suggested that I look at PCCTS:
> ... you can use it for commercial products without violating its notice,
> which explicitly permit use for commerical or proprietary software (both
> prohibited by bison&flex's copyright).
Just to keep the record straight (as this point often gets confused),
while bison is covered by the GPL, flex is not; it's covered by the BSD
copyright, which freely permits use in commerical and proprietary software
(so does the GPL, actually, as long as source code is made available).
Furthermore, scanners *generated* by flex are not covered by any sort of
copyright (again, unlike bison-generated parsers). You can do whatever
you like with them. So Basile's final point above is incorrect.
Vern Paxson firstname.lastname@example.org
Systems Engineering ucbvax!ee.lbl.gov!vern
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (510) 486-7504
[For yacc users for whom the GPL is a problem, Berkeley yacc is in the
public domain, meaning you can do anything with it you want. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.