On Nov 5, 5:53 pm, Matthias Benkard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 5, 3:33 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Are you sure? You're not modifying the clojure source, so you're not > > creating a derivative work. I would think you can create a GPL > > licensed library in that case. > > I can, but noone else will be allowed to redistribute it or works > based upon it because the GPL disallows combining the work with CPL'd > code. > You're right, the issue is about distribution, not use. If the GPL software assumes the presence of clojure (ie. does not include it in the distribution) that should satisfy the license. Some Java programs assume the presence of the JRE, with advice about how to get it if you don't already have it.
> Imagine this scenario: There's a GPL'd Java library A. Its license > disallows combining it with something CPL'd like Clojure. I can't > release a programme based upon both Clojure and A because by doing so, > I'd be combining A with Clojure. > I think as long as you don't include clojure in the distribution that should be ok. Not a lawyer... > > > It's analagous to claiming that Intel > > have to GPL their design for the x86 chips that Linux runs on, because > > Linux itself is GPL. > > This analogy seems to evade my mind. > Yes, it was bad and wrong. Let's take squeezebox as an example. I don't know what cpu it has, but it is a hardware appliance running GPL code. The code is freely available from their website. But the hardware, microcode etc is proprietary. So is the appliance a 'combined work' according to the GPL? Does a strict interpretation of the GPL require that the hardware be GPL'ed as well? I would guess not but I couldn't explain why not. The GPL is as much about making a political statement as it is about copyright issues. I've had several technology choices for internal applications instantly vetoed due to the GPL even though we had no plans to distribute simply because (a) nobody is really sure if that's ok and (b) nobody in the business wanted to be dictated to by a software license. That's the reality I work in. From a day to day perspective the GPL causes me far more problems than it solves. I (and most reasonable non-technical business people) can totally agree and comply with something like the CPL. If I extend (and redistribute) clojure the owner has a right to see the changes. If I build a proprietary internal system using clojure, that's my business. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
