[antlr-interest] visual basic 6 grammar
John D. Mitchell
johnm-antlr at non.net
Tue Apr 6 19:47:46 PDT 2004
>>>>> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Kaliszewski <sk at z.pl> writes:
>>>>>> John D. Mitchell wrote:
>>>> So what you're saying is, if the output of Antlr consists of a mixture
>>>> of Antlr code and your GPL code, then the licence on your code (GPL)
>>>> trumps that of Antlr?
>>> Yes, thats true.
>> Utter BS.
> Nope. As Antlr's licence is 'weaker' (i.e. less restrictive) but GPL
> compatible, GPL trumps it in the resulting work. If it was stronger and
> GPL incompatible, then there would be no way to licence resulting code
> (i.e GPL would be unapplicable). In such conflict situations many
> experts say it's possible to just release source code (as a case of free
> speech), and allow end users to build an applicaytion by themselves, but
> everyone agrees that any form of binary distributution (or even partly
> preprocessed code, like source files generated by Antlr) is then legally
No. You are conflating the restriction upon the directly comingled
derivative with the parts required to be make that comingled derivative
workable. They are separate issues. It can be a nasty gray area because it
fundamentally comes down to where/how do you draw the line. In fact,
during one of those rounds, I tried out a version of PCCTS. :-)
There was a lot of PITA back and forth over all of this comingling
derivation crap in the early years of GNU's Bison. That whole situation
sucked and wasted all to much money on lawyer time.
Given the rest of your response, my guess is that you basically understand
the issues but aren't being very crisp in your wording and so that's
causing some of us to get persnickety.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
antlr-interest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
More information about the antlr-interest