b/c given the above and the precedent set by gcc I'm probably going to have to say the output is also GPL unless I can exempt it nicely
-
Show this thread
-
but also: I have deliberately picked GPL to discourage usage by people that dislike it
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @mountain_ghosts
ah bison has this issue and made a slight change to their licensing https://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielMorsing
I am assuming every project with specific terms for this a. got a lawyer b. you can't reuse the terms
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mountain_ghosts @DanielMorsing
like I would need to define some equivalent to "bison skeleton" for my project
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mountain_ghosts @DanielMorsing
which does not in fact exist; the generated parsers contain fragments of canopy source code throughout
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mountain_ghosts @DanielMorsing
I hate that this is even a thing, it makes no sense
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mountain_ghosts @DanielMorsing
The entire GPL make no sense. What does it mean to "link" Ruby code? You deliberately chose a confusing license to annoy ppl ;)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
dude, if you're playing gotcha with licenses, choose an example where it doesn't make the interpretation easier
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yehuda Katz 🥨 Retweeted ghost mountain
Yehuda Katz 🥨 added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.