Hi, Cody Koeninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/15/05, Surendra Singhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. > > IAAL. If the lisp-gardeners end up needing legal advice, I can help > out within reason. > > That being said, (and no, this isnt intended as legal advice), I would > personally avoid putting serious work into a gui that depends on > CLISP, even if the intention is to later make it portable. The GPL is > unclear, and Bruno Haible's additions don't clarify things - if > anything, they make it worse. The work for clisp is already done. Whatever is being done now is adding sugar to the library. Even if the library where to completely move away from clisp ffi, there is still a problem, cffi also depends on clisp (in the same way as wxCL _will_). Again, IANAL. Imagine the worst case scenario, in which the clisp copyright holders want cffi and wxCL to be GPL'ed, and the courts also agree that it should be. Then it is still possible to throw out all clisp dependent code, and distribute the libraries with the current license. > The LLGPL isnt much better, but at least LTK has the apparent > advantage of being working, portable, and documented. -- Surendra Singhi http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html ,---- | "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." | -- Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945 `---- _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
