🚀 go-pugleaf

All though these ever returning discussions pro/contra GPL and GLPL at
times seems never ending, I usually enjoy them. Keep 'em coming.

I fully acknowledge FSF right to specify any licence term that they
please; after all, that's the only price you pay for the usually high
quality software.

The main problem is when you don't agree with the FSF
idea, that you can survive as a shrink wrapped software house
given away you source code, and instead make money on donations,
service or something else. Sure it works for some, but that *not*
the way 95% of the world works.

I have no (big) problem with the Gnu Library Public Licence, so
I have a question. As I understand the spirit of the GLPL:

  You can make programs using our libraries [and sell them]
  as long as you make it possible for people [bying them]
  to remake you program with different versions of the libraries.

Is it not correct that making a program using fx. bison
produced code, and thus the skeleton parser (covered by GPL),
requires one to distribute source for the whole program.

It's not sufficient to distribute the .y file and the objectfiles
for the rest.

Why not? That is, why is the skeleton covered by GPL?

/Tommy
--
Tommy Thorn                       email: tthorn@daimi.aau.dk
Computer Science Department       "People shouldn't work because they love it,
Aarhus University                  they should work because it hurts."
DENMARK                            -- Bob Sparacino, former Xerox executive