[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Warning, a bit of legal GPL discussion follows. > > Dwight Holman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 2. they changed the license from GPL to LGPL. > > > > 1) All projects using the CLisp FFI are projects required to be GPL. > > 2) WxCL is a project using the CLisp FFI. > > > > From these two statements, it follows that wxCL is a project required to be > > GPL. > > Which of the two statements is false? > > Apparently, #1 (judging from Surendra Singhi's follow-up). > > Still, assume #1 would be correct: > > There is absolutely no legal requirement for a project to be distributed > under GPL if the project's source depends on GPL components, not even then > when > it does in a very intimate way[1]. The actual use of both source codes > occures in the user's compiler. He has to make sure both projects use > compatible licenses. So, sorry to say, but actually your conclusion from > these two "facts" is incorrect too. > > [1] That's also the reason why it is perfectly legal to distribute > software cracks. You can publish whatever you want. The user of your > software has to make sure he obeys the rules. >
All this may be true; for me licencing is still an issue however. I'm a firm believer that if Lisp is ever to become popular in the 'mainstream' it's essential that apps and utilities can be shipped in binary form -- and they shouldn't be any bigger than an equivalent(ish) C binary. I don't see any realistic reason why we shouldn't be able to develop Gnome applets for example in Lisp and have them fit right in with the rest of the Gnome desktop, *without _appearing_ to be any larger than any other Gnome applet* (and in fact, without *being* any bigger if multiple Lisp applets are invoked in the same user session). This will encourage people to run the utilties, and when sufficiently interested, to install a full Lisp environment (IMO). Yes, this means that we *need* a 'liblisp.so' or whatever, which may indeed contain the majority (all?) of the Lisp environment. It would also be good if most (all?) Lisp compilers on a given platform could make use of the same liblisp (though this is pretty difficult I guess). I realise that this is in effect what happens when a utility is shipped as a fasl + a core image but in *marketing* perception is all and I believe many people used to 'normal' application delivery will find the above easier to swallow than what's the current norm when delivering Lisp utilities (at least when that utility is built on top of a Libre Lisp). If this were to come to pass, lots of people may end up shipping binaries (or more specifically, parts of binaries since hopefully people will have the 'liblisp' bit already) and falling under the dictates of whatever licence choices are made now. That said, it seems to me also to be the case that there are enough GUI approaches on the table at least that it will be possible to pick one up for pretty much any licence a developer wants to select for their project. Whilst I'm not currently involved in any development on Lisp compilers, I know at least one person on this list is... realistically, how difficult would it be to ship (say) SBCL as a 'libsbcl.so' + a couple of binaries that get the environment (listener) up when invoked? (This is one of the things I think Dylan got right; everything is built as a shared library. whether this is possible in Lisp I'm not sure (but can't see why not)). Maybe I'm just showing my newbie colours here though ;-) -Duncan > In any case, wxCL is free to relicense and change away from CLisp FFI. > -- > Fruhwirth Clemens - http://clemens.endorphin.org > for robots: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > Gardeners mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners > _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
