Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!aplcen!haven!mimsy!dbk
From: dbk@mimsy.UUCP (Dan Kozak)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: libg++ and copylefts
Message-ID: <18684@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 89 15:17:11 GMT
References: <6613@madmax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 28

From article <6613@madmax.UUCP>, by charliek@madmax.UUCP (Charlie Krasic):

> 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).   

True of Bison, I'm not sure about Flex.  

> 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.

Here's a scheme: buy another parser generator.  As rms has said time
again, FSF's goals are primarily political and "free" means
"liberty/freedom" not "without cost."  FSF's software is supposed to
be a carrot to encourage other's to share their work in the same
manner that FSF has shared their's.  It seems to me that if you don't
wish to participate in the copyleft that is up to you, but you must
realize that you cannot get the benefits of copylefted software unless
you do.  (nottwithstanding certain tricks recently proposed here to
subvert the copyleft while abding by the letter of the law; these will
most likely cause the FSF to burn precious cycles working on modified
wording for the GPL - you people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!).
-- 
#dan

Clever:         dbk@mimsy.umd.edu | "For I was rolled in water,
Not-so-clever:  uunet!mimsy!dbk   |  I was rolled out past the pier" - MoB