Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-21 11:22:57 -0400, John Hasler said: They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone to whom you sell binaries you are done. In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive the source; every customer has the right to make it public; it would only take one customer excercising this right to make the source publicly available. -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said: They might, but there are cases where they did not. One can't rely on this unlikely possibility, which becomes increasingly unlikely the more sales are made. The point is that _you_ are not required to publish anything. It hardly matters who does the publishing. The point is that the source still becomes publicly available. Offering source to everyone who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations. You can ignore requests for source from anyone else. Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works. Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've come full circle. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 10:52:58 -0400, John Hasler said: You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal. I assume that the author's goal is maximizing the amount of open source - and in fact, it is Pascal's stated goal - that others who use his library will open their source code for him to see and use - a perfectly reasonable desire. I just don't think anyone whose source is closed is going to open that source code simply to use a library - if they are constrained not to open their source, they simply won't use GPL libraries. In order to accomplish this primary goal - greater amounts of open source - you need users and contributors. Possibly counterintuitively, the goal of maximizing open source is actually better accomplished by *not* choosing the GPL. The GPL drives potential users away, and potential users are potential contributors, bug fixers, etc. Instead, these potential users will become users of some other library which is LGPL, or BSD, etc. licensed, and they will become open source contributors to those other libraries, not to the GPL licensed project. Again, recognition of this dynamic is what drove the creation of the Library GPL (now the Lesser GPL) in the first place. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 16:51:46 -0400, John Hasler said: I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD. 1. Linux isn't a *library*, it's an operating system. A GPL operating system doesn't force GPL licensing for any application that runs on it. A GPL library *does* force GPL licensing for any program that links with it. Again, the LLGPL was created for precisely this purpose. 2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 20:28:25 -0400, John Hasler said: No it isn't. The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ: http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/brand3581.htm http://www.opengroup.org/homepage-items/c399.html It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a partial BSD userland. And Apple contributes little or nothing back. http://www.apple.com/opensource/ lists scores of open source components that form part of Mac OS X and to which Apple contributes its enhancements. The market reality is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 22:48:27 -0400, John Hasler said: Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX does not make it a BSD. Being a derivative of 4.4 BSD makes it a BSD; Being certified by the Open Group makes it a UNIX. Mac OS X is a BSD UNIX. The market reality... ...is irrelevant to many of us. Many may wish it weren't relevant, but it is. The FSF recognized that the GPL was a poor match for the market realities of library use nearly 20 years ago when the FSF created the GNU Library Public License, now the Lesser GPL, for precisely this reason. ...is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects. The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit them to keep some of their changes secret. This is the very reason some programmers use the GPL. People and organizations who want to keep code secret are going to do so. It is naive to think that they will change their whole business model just to use a library. Instead, they will use libraries with licenses that allow them to keep some code private while still open sourcing other code thus contributing to the sum total of open source code. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-23 04:53:04 -0400, Lieven Marchand said: As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your commercial applications compiled and dumped with it. My understanding is that if your published application (commercial or otherwise) uses facilities of CLISP not generally available in other lisps (i.e., CLISP specific extensions to common lisp) then you would be required to release the source of your application under the GPL. IOW, an application that could just as easily be distributed using sbcl or ccl, etc. does not need to open its source, but one that is clisp specific does. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is. Mac OS X *is* a UNIX by the only legal definition of UNIX and for normal definitions of is. The license under which Apple releases its open source doesn't change Mac OS X's BSD heritage, and it doesn't invalidate Mac OS X's UNIX certification. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-23 09:41:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X is BSD needlessly confuses that issue. Saying that Mac OS X is BSD is: 1. true 2. a counterexample to the claim that linux is trouncing BSD UNIX. The original claim was that linux was dominating BSD UNIX because of the GPL. The 5x web client numbers for Mac OS X show that non-GPL licensed UNIX (here, BSD, APSL) in fact has much greater numbers than GPL linux. Finally, the APSL requires that modifications to *covered code* (i.e., the APSL library or code you are using in your larger work) be open sourced if your larger work is distributed. You are not required to open source the whole larger work, something that the GPL *does* require, and the LGPL, like the APSL, does not. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-24 15:23:28 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: Actually, MacOSX is just NeXTSTEP, and is older than Linux, so it's not surprizing it has more web clients than Linux. After all, NeXTSTEP was the system where the web was INVENTED, and where the first web browser was ever IMPLEMENTED! And the laser printer was first connected to the Xerox Alto, but you don't see many of those at graphic design firms. NeXTSTEP never had a significant web client share once numbers of internet users grew into the tens of millions. The numbers matched OS usage - 95% of these new users were on Windows, and the overwhelming majority of the remainder were on Mac OS. That's why NeXT had to sell the company to Apple, itself a minority player. Mac OS X has 5x as many web clients as Linux because of what Apple did with NeXT, not because NeXT was ever a popular client platform. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said: There's nothing ironic about it. The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, so licenses code whichever way works best. Libraries sometimes have different needs from applications. Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more useful licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser) GPL. -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. Renaming it to the Lesser GPL isn't likely to convince anyone old enough to remember, or intelligent enough to do a little research. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-25 09:59:52 -0400, Tamas K Papp said: I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a poor fit for libraries. Quite the opposite (see [1]). They just recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted to give them the choice. But the GPL is still the option they recommend, even for libraries. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html I don't put much stock in such rationalizations. IOW, having released the Library GPL, they realized that it was in many ways superior to the GPL from both the user and the open source perspective. They've been backpedaling ever since, and the frankly silly renaming of the Library GPL to the Lesser GPL is a clear sign of this ongoing attempt at damage control. I.e., when I say they recognize that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries, I'm saying that their actions (release of the LGPL and subsequent renaming) speak louder and more convincingly than their words (the link you provide). Regarding the broader issue (of how people license their libraries): I think this is an optimization problem where people have heterogeneous objective functions, and thus trying to convince people to pick another license is not always a worthwhile. It is possible that someone using a GPL/LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/... license is perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages, it is just that they decided to make a different choice. In which case, threads like these are unlikely to be fruitful. I don't think their objective functions differ much from mine. I think they don't appreciate how the license plays out in the real world. Those who support the GPL for libraries think that by doing so they maximize the promotion of open source. I contend that the LGPL or Apache or APSL license lead to greater amounts of open source because a GPL library excludes one of the largest pools of possible contributors - professional developers who work on closed source projects. These potential contributors will instead either 1. reinvent that particular wheel in a closed source fashion (loss to free software) 2. use a library with a license that doesn't require any publication such as the bsd, or mit. (possible loss to free software) 3. use a library with a license that requires publication only of covered code such as the LGPL, APSL, Apache, etc. Only this last case inevitably results in more open source. So by releasing a library under the GPL one provides as many ways for open source to lose as to win. Choosing the winning path in the first place by releasing the library under the LGPL/LLGPL/Apache etc. license leads to the biggest gains for open source. Again, the recognition of this reality is what led to the Library GPL in the first place. So people who support the GPL for libraries are unwittingly advocating for freedom in a way that actually results in less open source. Even if I don't convince my correspondents here, I do hope that some of those reading this thread will develop a more nuanced view of open source licenses. I've said what I have to say, so (undoubtedly much to your relief), I'll stop. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
