Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26145 comp.misc:8249 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!mephisto!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!kan From: kan@dg-rtp.dg.com (Victor Kan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.misc Subject: Re: Legal uses of lex & yacc Message-ID: <292@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 21 Feb 90 18:16:21 GMT References: <90049.104719MCCABE@MTUS5.BITNET> <271@xyzzy.UUCP> <34421@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: usenet@xyzzy.UUCP Reply-To: kan@tom.dg.com () Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 77 In article <34421@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >In article <271@xyzzy.UUCP> kan@tom.dg.com () writes: >-In article <90049.104719MCCABE@MTUS5.BITNET> MCCABE@MTUS5.BITNET (Jim McCabe) writes: >->Is it legal to >->use a yacc-generated compiler (and a lex-generated lexical analyzer) >->for part of a public-domain software package? >- >-But if you intend to distribute only C code, i.e. after you've run >-your work through the "Official" Lex and Yacc, you can be prosecuted >-for copyright infringement! That's because Lex and Yacc include >-copyrighted data files into their analyzers and parsers >-(/usr/lib/lex/n[cr]form and /usr/lib/yaccpar, respectively). > >I just looked; none of these files contain copyright notices. Hmmm. I just looked at another machine (i386 running 386/ix) and its version of those files have no copyright notices in them. When I first posted, I only looked on my workstation (m88k running DG/UX). It's files do have copyright notices in them. Since someone has responded to this query saying that AT&T has changed the license for Lex and Yacc output, I assume that it would be OK to distribute the output. (I can't be sure, so don't rely on what I say :-) >It'd be silly to copyright those files, because that would >render these tools useless for commercial software development! >You couldn't even distribute the binaries because they're derivative >works (right?) No, it wouldn't render Lex and Yacc useless for commerical software development. Users with commercial Unix licenses are allowed to distribute their products via their licensing agreement. That's what licenses are for. Users of those binaries will most likely be running them on machines with a Unix licenses as well (unless they're running Mach in BSD-emulation mode). I remember when it came time for Columbia Univ. to renew some of it's SunOS licenses last year. I assume that if a machine's Unix license expires, it becomes illegal for that machine to run anything compiled with any tools, libraries, header files, etc., which do fall under the license agreement. Presumably, people who generate software for machines using shared or dynalink libraries are somewhat luckier than those generating pure executables because they don't have to include copyrighted libraries in their binaries. This one I am sure of: header files in /usr/include on SysV contain AT&T proprietary source code copyright notices that prohibit distribution of those header files. A company can distribute software compiled with those header files because their license with AT&T allows them to do so. >(The Bison skeleton is another story -- the reason it's copyrighted is not >to *prevent* copying, but to *encourage* people to share their (and FSF's!) >code.) True, but it prohibits you from releasing the generated C code into the public domain, as the original poster implied. COPYLEFT != PD !!!!! But let's not start the Nth Copyleft debate. BTW, I love GNU stuff and use it all the time. I'm not sure I like/dislike the Copyleft, but I know I like the software. Isn't there a copyright notice for the Trustees of UC in the /usr/include header files on BSD Unix? >-- Jim Lewis > U.C. Berkeley | Victor Kan | I speak only for myself. | *** | Data General Corporation | Edito cum Emacs, ergo sum. | **** | 62 T.W. Alexander Drive | Columbia Lions Win, 9 October 1988 for | **** %%%% | RTP, NC 27709 | a record of 1-44. Way to go, Lions! | *** %%%