Frank Heckenbach wrote:

I suppose not, but how about running `bison parser.y' and using or

distributing the resulting output?

Since both packages have free licenses I am allowed to do this. If the license of a library I was including allowed a similar use, I would not be violating it. If my package was under the GNU GPL, I was the copyright holder, and my actions violated the GPL, I think I would be acting foolishly, since this would weaken my position if I wanted to prosecute somebody else for a copyright violation. However, I don't believe that I would be breaking any law, because I would be the damaged party. I don't believe that any law enforcement agency pursues copyright violations unless the copyright holder initiates an action, and a person cannot bring charges against himself or herself. If the FSF is the copyright holder, than the package would presumably be a GNU package, and the maintainer is responsible for the distribution. In this case, I expect that the maintainer and the FSF would be able to sort out any problems themselves.

So it really was the intention (for the GLR skeleton), and they've now discussed changing it. (And as Alfred noted, originally it even was the intention for all skeletons.)

I stand corrected. I thought there was also something about bringing the situation with Bison in line with that of other tools, but perhaps not.

I have tried to answer to the best of my ability and I hope that the people who actually had questions were satisfied with the information they got, whether it came from me or someone else. I have now said my last word in this thread.

Laurence