www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JavaCC generated parser for Harmony...
Date Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:00:53 GMT

On Jun 26, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:

> Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> Umm, the original email says the grammar is LGPL, not the parser
>> generator.  That sounds more like the source code than the  
>> compiler to
>> me.
> Garrett, I know you grok the technical terms, but if I may phrase it
> more broadly for everyone...
> The tool's input file (grammar source code) is licensed as LGPLv2.1.
> It is passed through the generator tool, which is licensed as BSD, to
> produce the tool's output file (Java source code).
> Our contributor would like to contribute the tool's output file (only)
> to Apache Harmony, and we were unsure what effect the tool's  
> 'mechanical
> transformation' of input file to output file had.
> Authors of the tool itself appear to claim no restrictions on the  
> tool's
> output [1], but given the obvious analogy with source->binary  
> compilers
> it would seem that the input file source license is most relevant.
> The question is: Should we consider the output file also to be LGPL
> licensed and deal with it under those terms?

IANAL, but it seems that a mechanically produced output would have  
the same license terms as the source whence it was derived. So I'd  
say that the output file should be considered LGPL as well.

But I also heard someone say that the grammar was modified. The act  
of modifying it takes it out of the LGPL world, as the modified  
grammar is itself a derived work, and I don't see how the LGPL  
license applies to the derived work.

> [1] http://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/JavaCC-FAQ/javacc-faq- 
> moz.htm#tth_sEc1.7
> Regards,
> Tim
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message