Dwight Holman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12/15/05, Clemens Fruhwirth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What about using wxCL as McCLIM backend? > In fact I was also thinking on similar lines, I was more interested in Duncan's DUIM. But having McClim also sounds fun.
> I am scared by certain issues with wxCL. Currently, it only works on > CLisp. Wait, its only a matter of getting spare time (couple of days), you might see a wxCL release working on all platforms (CFFI as backend) very soon. >While this isn't normally a stubling block, it seems that > large portions of the wxCL code use the CLisp FFI package. > This means wxCL is held to the GPL, and cannot be licensed as LGPL. As Clemens mentioned wxCL is not GPL, it is under wxWidgets license (which is LGPL with the option of distributing binaries under any license whatsoever). > [1] Basing McCLIM on wxCL would then make McCLIM GPL, creating a big > licensing mess for the communities working on McCLIM currently. > > I suspect that wxCL can get away with relicensing GPL code simply > because it hasn't appeared as a threat on anyone's radar. Googling > for the mailing list thread in which CLisp was initially forced to > become GPL would also explain the CLisp authors' reluctance to step in > and correct the authors of wxCL. IANAL. There is a misconception about clisp (even I had that, and I made wxCL 1.0.0 GPL), one can distribute one's lisp source code using clisp internals under any license (and thats why CFFI and wxCL are not GPL). But if one distributes fasl files generated by clisp and they rely on the internals then one has to do so under GPL. Reading the discussion in the thread on the first wxCL release on comp.lang.lisp, and the discussion on the licensing issue in clisp thread (started by Kenny Tilton) should clarify the above points. Besides, because of the exception clause in clisp's license, when wxCL starts working on all implementations, the clisp fasl can also be distributed under any license. > A GPL fork of McCLIM would work. I love the GPL as a license and tool > for free software, but if one of the goals of the Gardeners is to make > a distribution of Common Lisp that both businesses and individuals > feel is "theirs", then I think the LLGPL would be a good place to > draw the line. > > 1] http://www.findinglisp.com/blog/2005/12/reddit-and-lisp-psychosis.html > Search for "forces your code to be GPL". > > This is also implied by most of the COPYRIGHT file in the CLisp > distribution. The paragraph on "foreign non-lisp" code also doesn't > bode well for licensing issues and wxCL. -- Surendra Singhi http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html ,---- | Great wits are sure to madness near allied, | And thin partitions do their bounds divide. | | (John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, 1681) `---- _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
