dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) (04/01/88)
> (1) My understanding of BISON is that if you use it, then > the thing you created with it must be freely distributed. > Agreed? No. The BISON license covers only BISON and BISON derivatives (mutations). You are free to do whatever you want with the output of BISON (manure?). > (2) What about gcc? My understanding is that if you port > gcc to a new machine, it must be freely distributed. > Agreed? No. If you want to distribute such a port it must be freely distributed, but you're free to do such a port and keep it to yourself. > (3) Now, what about programs compiled with gcc? (I.e. my > own code, compiled to binary using gcc. Must the > binaries be freely distributed? What about the original > source? No. As with BISON, the output of GCC is yours. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "We must remove the TV-induced stupor that lies like a fog across the land." -- Ted Nelson
dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) (04/06/88)
In a previous posting to comp.lang.c I wrote: >> (1) My understanding of BISON is that if you use it, then >> the thing you created with it must be freely distributed. >> Agreed? > >No. The BISON license covers only BISON and BISON derivatives >(mutations). You are free to do whatever you want with the output of >BISON (manure?). Others have since pointed out that BISON outputs copyrighted C source code in the form of a parser. The reply above was based on my reading of the COPYING file distributed with BISON that applies to BISON itself, not its output. While the output of BISON is indeed copyrighted, I suspect that the FSF would be standing on wobbly legs if they tried to take someone to court for violating that copyright. First, nothing in the man page suggests that the output is copyrighted. Second, the parser generated by BISON does not output a copyright message when executed. Third, the only indication that the output is copyrighted is in a C source file that may never have been viewed by the person who generated it. Granted, it's unlikely that one would never have looked it, but it's not impossible. The real problem for the FSF would be to prove that the offender was aware of the copyright, especially if the offender doesn't have the source code of the parser. I suggest that the FSF change the parser produced by BISON to output a copyright notice each time it is executed. I also think that messages notifying users of the copyrighted nature of the output of BISON should be placed in the COPYING file and the BISON man page. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "In case of doubt, decide in favor of what is correct." -- Karl Kraus
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (04/07/88)
in article <12818@brl-adm.ARPA>, dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) says: > ... > I suggest that the FSF change the parser produced by BISON to output a > copyright notice each time it is executed. I also think that messages > notifying users of the copyrighted nature of the output of BISON > should be placed in the COPYING file and the BISON man page. > I suggest that they remove the copyright notice. I rather suspect that it is there by mistake. Makes about as much sense as putting a copyright notice into a .o file generated by cc. How about it FSF? Are you listening? Dave Jones 880 Fox Lane San Jose, CA. 95131 (408) 437-9700 Ext 3227 UUCP: ucbvax!sun!megatest!djones ARPA: megatest!djones@riacs.EDU