|creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? email@example.com (Tim Converse) (1998-05-04)|
|Re: creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? firstname.lastname@example.org (Craig Burley) (1998-05-07)|
|Re: creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? email@example.com (Jason Merrill) (1998-05-07)|
|Re: creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? corbett@lupa.Eng.Sun.COM (1998-05-12)|
|Re: creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-05-15)|
|From:||Craig Burley <email@example.com>|
|Date:||7 May 1998 16:56:20 -0400|
|Keywords:||lex, yacc, GCC|
Tim Converse <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm new to lex and yacc-like tools, but am interested in using them to
> produce C++ code. The project I'm working on is for a commercial
> shop, so the code that is produced cannot be copylefted.
Strictly speaking, that's irrelevant; there exist several commercial
shops that produce code that is copylefted. I suspect you mean
something else, like "the project I'm working on is for a shop that
refuses to copyleft the results", which amounts to the same thing for
> As I understand it, lexers produced with flex(++) can be freely
> used, but parsers created with bison(++) are covered under the GNU
> GPL. For this project, this rules out bison.
Have you checked up on this lately? I believe it is no longer
the case, but haven't kept track.
"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson email@example.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.