Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> I think readline isn't our biggest problem. What about if
> they notice that our parser can only be compiled when using
> bison, and that we ship the generated output for the case
> someone doesn't has bison installed?

Non problem. From the Bison manual:

File: bison.info, Node: Conditions, Next: Copying, Prev: Introduction, Up: Top

Conditions for Using Bison
**************************

As of Bison version 1.24, we have changed the distribution terms for
`yyparse' to permit using Bison's output in non-free programs.
Formerly, Bison parsers could be used only in programs that were free
software.

The other GNU programming tools, such as the GNU C compiler, have
never had such a requirement. They could always be used for non-free
software. The reason Bison was different was not due to a special
policy decision; it resulted from applying the usual General Public
License to all of the Bison source code.

The output of the Bison utility--the Bison parser file--contains a
verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison, which is the code for the
`yyparse' function. (The actions from your grammar are inserted into
this function at one point, but the rest of the function is not
changed.) When we applied the GPL terms to the code for `yyparse', the
effect was to restrict the use of Bison output to free software.

We didn't change the terms because of sympathy for people who want to
make software proprietary. *Software should be free.* But we
concluded that limiting Bison's use to free software was doing little to
encourage people to make other software free. So we decided to make the
practical conditions for using Bison match the practical conditions for
using the other GNU tools.

regards, tom lane