Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob From: bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: increasing yacc states Message-ID: Date: 14 Jul 89 11:33:32 GMT References: <8704@june.cs.washington.edu> <4996@ficc.uu.net> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science Lines: 25 In-reply-to: peter@ficc.uu.net's message of 13 Jul 89 22:41:00 GMT In article <4996@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: In article <8704@june.cs.washington.edu>, pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: If you build a parser using a standard BISON skeleton and then link it to a program that you distribute, then the sources FOR THE ENTIRE PROGRAM must be freely distributable. ...So, the question is: do BISON and GCC have different restrictions? If so, why? If not, what's the real story? I'm not saying Stallman is wrong to have a restriction like this, I'd just like to know what it means. As usual, you're asking and rumoring in the wrong place. If you were to ask an original question on gnu.gcc you'd probably find someone qualified to give you "the real story". Or better yet, read the GNU General Public License first, which addresses such matters directly. This issue arises quite frequently on gnu.gcc because people don't read the license first, and ask questions with answers that don't change from wave to wave. Don't ask me, because I'm not the right one to answer - I have nothing to do with the FSF, so I can't represent their position. It just irks me to see rumors being mongered in authoritative-sounding tones of voice, but actually in a knowledge vacuum.