Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!sce!madmax!charliek
From: charliek@madmax.UUCP (Charlie Krasic)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: libg++ and copylefts
Summary: But what about Bison and Flex?
Keywords: GNU copyleft g++ flex bison
Message-ID: <6613@madmax.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jul 89 16:04:21 GMT
References: <2053@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <6590203@hplsla.HP.COM> <904@accuvax.nwu.edu> <914@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Reply-To: charliek@cognos.UUCP (Charlie Krasic)
Organization: Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 36

In article <914@accuvax.nwu.edu> morrison@accuvax.nwu.edu (Vance Morrison ) 
writes:
 
>After following this discussion of copylefts and listening to a lot of
>people rant at the evil of the copyleft, it occures to be there is a
>very simple solution to the problem.
 
[stuff deleted...]
>Both views are reasonable, here is my solution.
 
>1) The software developer designs his code using the GNU libraries.  
>2) He then compiles his modules into object files.   
>3) He sells his software but distributes it with a linker and the
>	gnu software libraries and gnu source.
>4) Part of the installation process is linking his code to the GNU code.
 
[more stuff deleted...]
 
>Vance Morrison

Sounds good, but what about stuff like Bison and Flex?
I'm new to GNU (and Unix) software, but my understanding is that these
programs insert code.  In order to get a working product you have to mix
your own code with theirs (FSF).   I am thinking about starting a project
which relies pretty heavily on Bison, so I would be really interested in
a scheme which doesn't require me to give my product (or the source) away.

Charlie Krasic

p.s. I guess my question has little to do with comp.lang.c++, but I was
	 not sure where to put it. 
-- 
Charlie Krasic  3755 Riverside Dr.  VOICE: (613) 738-1338 ext.5157
Cognos, Inc     P.O. Box 9707       FAX: (613) 738-0002
                Ottawa, Ontario       
	        CANADA  K1G 3Z4     UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!charliek