Re: filebench: bison generated parser + CDDL

[Akim Demaille]

Hi Evan!

Le 2 août 2012 à 10:08, Evan Lavelle a écrit :

> On 02/08/2012 07:25, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Dropping CC is quite impolite, especially when it is to write about
>> the missing person.
> 
> Apologies if I missed out anyone. It seemed to me that most people were 
> getting at least two copies of the email.

OK.

>> I don't know them, but I believe that Evan Lavelle's statements are
>> untrue.  They do charge companies that ask questions about proprietary
>> software, but the rest is free of charge.  There can be mistakes, of
>> course, if the context is not clearly established, which is not the
>> case here.
> 
> I've tried asking them to clarify a specific point in their licence, with 
> context, in the past. They replied, stating that "I cannot advise you in 
> developing non-free software". I replied, stating (among other things) that 
> "I'm not asking you for advice on developing non-free software; I'm asking 
> you for clarification on the terms of your licence". They didn't reply to my 
> second mail. I've attached their only response below, dated 26th Feb 2008.

I'm sorry the experience was frustrating.  I've had to ask for advice in the 
past, and it is certainly true that their delays can be very large.

> The problem here is that the GPL is so complex and opaque that the FSF must 
> get literally thousands of queries on it. The internet is just littered with 
> questions and misunderstandings on GPL.

I never saw the congestion of address@hidden this way :)  But the GNU GPL has a 
purpose, to protect freedom, not to be simple.  I'm sure that if they could 
have made it simpler, they would have.  It's sort of like the constitutions 
where you state that everyone is equal in right, yet you need amendments that 
"yes, that includes women vs. men", "yes, that includes black and white", "yes, 
that includes gay vs. heterosexual", etc. etc.

> As it happens, I don't think Martin's question is a complex one. I think he 
> should just get on and do it. And, if he hasn't received a reply from 
> address@hidden, he's probably covered anyway.

Very much agreed.