[Gcl-devel] Re: CLISP and independent works [was Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter]

[Sam Steingold]

> * In message <address@hidden>
> * On the subject of "CLISP and independent works [was Re: GCL compliance and 
> Bill Schelter]"
> * Sent on 26 Jul 2003 11:16:28 +1200
> * Honorable Adam Warner <address@hidden> writes:
>
> (a) the code must not rely on CLISP internals (i.e. the code only
> references external symbols in CLISP's public packages (namely the
> packages COMMON-LISP,COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT);
> AND
> (b) "would as well run in any other Common Lisp implementation."

AND here means "i.e."
this is English, not legalese.

> > CLOCC/PORT is, in fact, a cross-platform portability kit which runs
> > under CLISP, CMUCL, ACL, LW (and soon GCL - as soon as they fix 
> > DEFPACKAGE &c).
> 
> Then it also doesn't fulfil the criteria that it "would as well run in
> any other Common Lisp implementation."

`any' is not `every' or `each'.

if your program is useless without CLISP, it is GPL.  if not, it's not.
if you distribute your program bundled with CLISP, the bundle is GPL.
if you distribute it independently, you pick the license.
if the only way the user can run your program is with CLISP, then the
"unbundling" is a "dirty trick" and your program is indeed GPL.

IANAL.  This just MHO.

Now, I bail out of this discussion.
If Bruno wants to change the wording of COPYRIGHT, he will.
If he disagrees with me, he will speak up.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html>
Software is like sex: it's better when it's free.