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

[C Y]

--- Sam Steingold <address@hidden> wrote:

> 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.

One question about that - in theory, someone's clisp specific code
could be ported to another lisp environment, that the original author
did not develop for.  How does this work?  The original work, by the
above arguement, would be forced to be GPL, but a new developer could
remove the dependance on Clisp which originally forced that condition. 
What happens then?  Also, what about code that originally was written
for multiple lisp environments, but has not maintained and happens to
only work with clisp? 

CY

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com