🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BOB.89Oct19161639@archer.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
>    I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses
>    bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright.
>
> You may have seen such an article, but it didn't express a complete
> understanding of the GNU copyleft.  There's a lot of that going around :-)

Here is what I just "dragged up from" gnu.misc.discuss archive (NOT
SUPPOSED TO BE OR INTENDED AS CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF ANYTHING!
MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!):

> rms@wheaties.ai.mit.edu writes:
> >The FSF lawyer told me that distributing code which was designed to
> >work only when linked with part of a GNU program would be considered,
> >legally, as a subterfuge for distributing a modified program
> >containing both that and the GNU program.  So it would be covered by
> >the general public license.
> 
> This sounds like a `proprietary interface' argument.  ``You must
> follow the copyleft on all code that uses something other than the
> standard (documented external) interface.''  Is this true?

Was this (IMHO important) question settled?

I think (NOT CERTAIN!  MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) I saw a
similar claim, written by a member of FSF, made for GNU tools and
libraries; namely that if a source file is designed to work only with
a GNU tool or GNU library the source file falls under GNU copyright.
Bison was, according to the best of my recollection, specifically
mentioned as an example.

I can't find the reference in the gnu.misc.discuss archives; it was
probably somewhere else (possibly my imagination; MisInfPosNotInt.)
I'll try to find it.  Anyone else remember seeing anything like this?


This quote does, IMHO, illustrate (THOUGH NOT PROVE!) the possibility
I was making a reference to:

To me, the reference I quote above seems to imply a (WARNING!
FOLLOWING PHRASE MAY BE FOUND INFLAMMATORY BY SOME!  MISINFORMATION
POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) proprietary programming interface.  It was my
understanding and personal conclusion (I may not be able to "drag
something up" to support this) that FSF does no condone propritetary
user interfaces.  Are programming interfaces considered different?


To reduce flames:
	The quote above may, to some, appear if I was presenting it as
	conclusive proof; this is not, however, neither explicitly nor
	implicitly intended.  If the conclusion or information in the
	quoted article is incorrect, my conclusios based on it are
	most probably also incorrect.  I may also be misinterpreting
	the quote; please read it and make your own conclusion.  The
	quote may also be out of context but, to the best of my
	knowledge, is not (MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!)

	I appear quite uncertain about many things above; after some
	of the recent articles here I won't say what "1 + 1" is in my
	opinion without a disclaimer of possible unintended
	misinformation.
									++sja