On Jun 21, 2004, at 6:58 PM, Peter Graves wrote:
> Getting ready for the first release of ABCL as an independent entity
> (which may or may not occur in the near future; I'm not promising
> anything), I'd like to propose a change to ABCL's license.
It's like Christmas in June!
> As applied to ABCL, this means that you can link ABCL with independent
> modules to produce an executable that you can then license however you
> please, provided you meet the licensing requirements of any other code
> you include or link to.
> In other words, software that uses ABCL "as is" does not have to be
> GPLed just because it uses ABCL.
Would you mind putting these two sentences (or something resembling
them) in the license file as well, just by way of clarification - and
maybe one or two examples of what's OK and what's not? (e.g., is
calling into lisp from java allowed? calling into java from lisp?) Just
to make things perfectly clear - I think Linus has a similar informal
explanation in the kernel license regarding binary modules.