Basil,

I agree that my reading might well be too restrictive. Indeed, if  
anyone who understands these matters well can clarify, I'd appreciate  
it.

Regarding the issue of syntax -- true in principle, but the fact of  
the matter is that I started with the yacc grammar, not the reference  
manual.  As an earlier thread on this list discussed [1], the manual  
is more of a guideline, then a specification. :-)

Cheers,
Yitzhak

[1] http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2008/06/b8d8bf2988e32db0cdb365037297996c.en.html



On Feb 15, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:

> Yitzhak Mandelbaum wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'd like to port the OCaml grammar to another parser generator.  
>> However, the grammar is covered under the Q Public License, and the  
>> terms of the license seem to require that the ported version only  
>> be distributed as a patch to the current YACC grammar. Given that  
>> I'm porting the grammar to serve as an example for a new parser  
>> generator, distributing it as an unreadable patch is quite  
>> impractical.
>
> I am not sure that the licence requires you to make it a patch, if  
> the syntax of your grammar is sufficiently different. (for instance,  
> to port it to ANTLR/PCCTS). But I am not a lawyer.
>
> If you intend to make a free software of your parser, perhaps the  
> easiest way would be to ask kindly the Ocaml team?
>
> My feeling is that your understanding of Ocaml's licence is too  
> restrictive, especially if you play the free software game. But I am  
> not a lawyer!
>
> And a language syntax is not described by a yacc grammar, but by a  
> human readable document. AFAIK, the Ocaml reference manual is not  
> covered by QPL.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> -- 
> Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
> email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
> 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
> *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***

-----------------------------
Yitzhak Mandelbaum