Re: Question about "Conditions for Using Bison" in Bison 2.0 documentation

[Akim Demaille]

>>> "Sylvain" == Sylvain Schmitz <address@hidden> writes:

 > Paul Hilfinger wrote:
 >> In fact, this issue did get discussed when the GLR skeleton got
 >> introduced, and the language (or lack of it) is, AIR, deliberate on
 >> the part of the lead maintainers at the time.  On consideration, I
 >> would prefer that the same terms apply to all skeletons as now apply
 >> to the C LALR(1) skeleton.  I think that there does come a point at
 >> which copylefting becomes shooting oneself in the foot.

 > This looks to me as a problem of competitive advantage: if bison was
 > one of the only programs providing C++ or GLR parsers generation, it
 > could be seen as a way to promote GPLed software.  It might have been
 > true when these skeleton first appeared, but I don't think it is any
 > more, since both commercial and open source implementations exist now.
 > In which case it seems to me that the opposite attitude is better,
 > that is promote the use of bison with an unrestrictive license on the
 > skeletons, and hope it will promote the use of other open source
 > software.

I concur.