Re: creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc?

Craig Burley <burley@cygnus.com>
7 May 1998 16:56:20 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? converse@cs.uchicago.edu (Tim Converse) (1998-05-04)
Re: creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? burley@cygnus.com (Craig Burley) (1998-05-07)
Re: creating non-GPL'ed C++ parser code -- flex++ and yacc? jason@cygnus.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? tkb@access.mountain.net (1998-05-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Craig Burley <burley@cygnus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 7 May 1998 16:56:20 -0400
Organization: Cygnus Support
References: 98-05-022
Keywords: lex, yacc, GCC

Tim Converse <converse@cs.uchicago.edu> 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
your purposes.


> 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 burley@gnu.org
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.