Python Is Really Middleware

Tim Daneliuk tundra at
Sat Aug 4 04:10:02 CEST 2001

Bengt Richter wrote:
> On 03 Aug 2001 20:20:01 GMT, Tim Daneliuk <tundra at> wrote:
> [...]
> >Yes, the example I cited was well before all this.  I need to go back
> >and reread the LGPL.  One area that was not (and still is not, only because
> >I have not kept up with it) clear to me is how code generated by
> >flex and bison was to be treated since they include GPLed code in the
> >output...  I'll get around to looking into this when I need to.
> >
> Don't have bison handy for some reason, but no reason to suffer FUD re flex:
> From the "README" file of flex-2_5_4a_tar.gz:
> "...
> Note that flex is distributed under a copyright very similar to that of
> BSD Unix, and not under the GNU General Public License (GPL), except for
> the "configure" script, which is covered by the GPL.
> ... "
> and from the "copying" file:
> "Flex carries the copyright used for BSD software, slightly modified
> because it originated at the Lawrence Berkeley (not Livermore!) Laboratory,
> which operates under a contract with the Department of Energy:
>         Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California.
>         All rights reserved.
>         This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by
>         Vern Paxson.
> ...
> This basically says "do whatever you please with this software except
> remove this notice or take advantage of the University's (or the flex
> authors') name".
> Note that the "flex.skl" scanner skeleton carries no copyright notice.
> You are free to do whatever you please with scanners generated using flex;
> for them, you are not even bound by the above copyright.
> ..."

Ahhh yes, I remember this now ... it was 'bison' (and bison.hairy) that 
was the problem, IIRC...

Tnx for clearing this up...
Tim Daneliuk
tundra at

More information about the Python-list mailing list