Just Launched: You can now import projects and releases from Google Code onto SourceForge
We are excited to release new functionality to enable a 1-click import from Google Code onto the Allura platform on SourceForge. You can import tickets, wikis, source, releases, and more with a few simple steps. Read More
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> IIUC, the GPL implies that a user must be able to extract the image,
> and to compile a patched version of clisp (eg. with added modules),
> and to save a new executable with the extracted image and the patched
> clisp. Similarly, he should be able to patch any clisp lisp function
> (ie. needs a REPL in the saved image). All this even without
> considering the license of the application in this image.
which sentence of the GPL says this? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think it is
sufficient e.g. when you have a webpage where you can download the
standlone-exe and on the same page the source is available for download and
a link to the GPL text itself.
BTW: A.1.1.2. of the FAQ says "why GNU GPL?" -> Because CLISP uses GNU
Then I have some questions:
- does this mean when I compile CLISP without the GNU readline library that
it is not GPL? Which licence is it then?
says, that the source code needs not to be licenced under GPL, if it uses
only things in the COMMON-LISP, COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, CLOS, GRAY and
EXT packages, but foreign non-Lisp code that is linked with CLISP or loaded
into CLISP through dynamic linking is not exempted from this copyright. Is
the image-linking considered as "foreign non-Lisp code that is linked with
- when I'm using the CFFI library, which uses the FFI package, needs my
source code to be licenced as GPL? CFFI has a BSD-like licence (do whatever
you want with the source, as long as you credit the authors), so it is fine
to release CFFI with a GPL program, but when my user program uses only the
BSD CFFI and nothing from the CLISP FFI package, is my program still
"infected" by the GPL licence?
The reasons for my questions are that I plan to sell software written in
Lisp and some customers may want to disclosure the source code. There would
be no problem, if CLISP would be released under 2 licences (which is
possible, see e.g. MySQL): BSD for a version compiled without GNU readline
and GNU GPL for a version with GNU readline.
Frank Buss, fb@...
From: Roman Belenov <rbelenov@ya...> - 2006-01-30 09:11:07
"Frank Buss" <fb@...> writes:
> Is the image-linking considered as "foreign non-Lisp code that is linked
> with CLISP"?
It's probably not, but it seems that ability to create standalone executables
requires changes in the license. While user's image can be treated as
independent work, single executable file with lots of GPL-licensed code inside
look like derived one.
With regards, Roman.