[Gcl-devel] GCL compliance and Bill Schelter

[root]

> There has been some uncertainty for quite a while on how the GPL and
> Lisp interact.  If we (particularly the FSF) can finally resolve the
> questions/issues here it would do the community a real service.  If the
> GPL in this case is preventing other types of licenses, particularly
> free software licensed programs, from being developed, run, or compiled
> into usable form on the platform it provides, than something is wrong
> and needs to be fixed.  Let's hash it out now so we can all get back to
> coding.

Axiom, like other systems, builds a great deal of "system state" which
is saved in a runtime image. This builds on the language facilities
available in, I believe, all Common Lisp systems. (And also Smalltalk-like
languages). This save-system mechanism (as it is called in GCL) is the
Lisp equivalent of linking. Code I load into the system, especially
compiled code, is dynamically linked with external symbols in the image.
Indeed, the hardest part of AKCL/GCL has been the issue of dynamic linking.

I would make the analogy that in C one uses a linker to combine compiler
output and libraries to create a "save-system" image runnable binary.
Lisp combines compiler output and the lisp runtime (essentially a big
library) to create a "save-system" image. The linker just happens to
be internal to the interpreter.

My argument is that the GPL has grown out of a compiler-style mindset
and needs to take into account other styles of programming. 

It must be possible to write a GPLed Common Lisp language supporting
this common feature that allows users to write in Common Lisp without
being GPLed. Without this proviso it will not be possible to write
Common Lisp code in any other "free" license. Surely this can't be
the intention of the Free Software Foundation. 

Tim Daly
address@hidden
address@hidden