[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL
From: |
Jong-Kyou Kim |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:33:20 +0900 |
Hello Camm,
Regarding the following question, I'd like tell my experience when I tried to
use clisp for developing a software system for a company.
> It appears we have several options:
>
> 1) remove or replace readline in GCL and keep the LGPL
> 2) make use of the clause you cite below for a multiple license
> strategy depending on whether readline is linked in.
> 3) make GCL GPL and add a note in the COPYING file allowing
> proprietary images built with proprietary standard common lisp
> code.
>
> My first question is concerning the difference in practice between the
> LGPL and the GPL with the clause as in 3). Aren't they completely
> equivalent? It would not appear that option 3) would pose a
> significant obstacle to anyone.
>
Making proprietary image of CLisp is exempted only when it is independent work.
Being an independent work, according to the licensing term, is that the work
could run without referring any symbols except the ones in the package
COMMON-LISP,
COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, and EXT.
It means, as far as I understand, I cannot develop any system which uses socket
connections since it uses socket package. I think this exception makes sense
under GPL since CLisp, in this case, serves only as a substitute of any other
common lisp platform and have little to do with the proprietary code.
To make industrial applications using GCL, threfore, I think it would be much
better to license it under LGPL.
Best regards
Jong-Kyou
PS. After reading the e-mail between RMS and Sam, I think 2) could have some
trouble. Even Sam proposed dual version of CLisp systems, one with readline and
one without readline, RMS didn't agree that the one without readline could be
released under LGPL.
Below is the part of the discussion (RMS> and SAM> are inserted to clarify who
told what). For more details, you could refer
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL?rev=HEAD
--------- below ----------
RMS> Readline's terms say that the whole program has to be under
RMS> the GPL, and just having the user do the link doesn't change this.
SAM> I don't agree. My lisp.a is not a "work based on libreadline.a". What I
SAM> distribute is a "mere aggregation" of lisp.a and libreadline.a - the
latter
SAM> with source.
SAM> I could provide a libnoreadline.a and let the user choose to link
lisp.a
SAM> with either GNU's libreadline.a or my libnoreadline.a . Would that
convince
SAM> you that lisp.a "can be reasonably considered independent and separate
SAM> work" ?
RMS> No, and I doubt it would convince a judge either.
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, (continued)
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/17
- RE: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Mike Thomas, 2003/07/17
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/18
- RE: [Maxima] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Stavros Macrakis, 2003/07/18
- RE: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Mike Thomas, 2003/07/20
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/21
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Camm Maguire, 2003/07/17
- RE: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Mike Thomas, 2003/07/18
- Re: [Maxima] RE: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Camm Maguire, 2003/07/18
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/18
Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL,
Jong-Kyou Kim <=
Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Jong-Kyou Kim, 2003/07/01