For Approval: Open Vendor Public License (OVPL) and Open Vendor Lesser Public License (OVLPL)

[Alex Bligh]

--On 30 June 2005 09:31 -0400 peter.moldave at gesmer.com wrote:

> The part of the second paragraph that says "the copied text in the output
> is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code" is what
> I am referring to.  If there is GPL-covered source code copied into the
> output by the parser/compiler/etc, I think the output is subject to the
> GPL at some level....

Hmmm... well I quite see why the Bison folks (you?) have done this, as if
the FAQ is correct then you clearly need the carve-out. But clearly it's
the license itself which is binding, and if the FAQ is correct, I the words
"independent of having been made by running the Program" seem otiose, as
the only manner in the general case the only output from Bison which would
be a derived work of Bison is *dependent* upon its making by running the
program. Clearly though it's worth clarifying - no criticism there.

This is precisely why I wonder whether the issue isn't better handled
by an "additional grant" (or license exception if you prefer) rather
than a term in the license itself, just as you have (see last message).

Alex