The CLISP GPL implications appear to come up quite frequently. Perhaps we should 1) Clarify with the CLISP copyright holders exactly what their interpretation is 2) Present a handful of examples that range from clear "GPL capture" to clearly free of the GPL & present these to the CLISP copyright holders for their opinion 3) Publish the findings.
IANAL, but no matter what the actual copyright of something is, whether or not you get sued is up to the holder of the copyright. If the CLISP copyright holder says something is OK, then in reality it actually is OK. Of course, they can change their interpretation at any time & the situation may change. I believe the Linux kernel is in the same position with binary modules, some claim that they violate the GPL, but Linus (the copyright holder) says it is OK by him. If he changes his mind then things may change. Cheers Brad _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
