From: Kenny T. <kt...@ny...> - 2005-06-09 17:23:26
|
Bruno Haible wrote: >Kenny Tilton wrote: > > >>> From the CLisp copyright: >>> >>>"This copyright does *not* cover user programs that run in CLISP and >>> third-party packages not part of CLISP, if they only reference external >>> symbols in CLISP's public packages (namely the packages COMMON-LISP, >>> COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT), i.e. if they don't rely on CLISP >>> internals and would as well run in any other Common Lisp implementation." >>> >>> > >This paragraph in CLISP's copyright has been changed on 2004-09-15, in >order to be compatible with portability layers such as clocc/port and UFFI. >It now reads like this: > >" > This copyright does *not* cover user programs that run in CLISP and > third-party packages not part of CLISP, if > a) They only reference external symbols in CLISP's public packages > (namely the packages COMMON-LISP, COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT), > i.e. if they don't rely on CLISP internals and would as well run > in any other Common Lisp implementation. Or > b) They only reference external symbols in CLISP's public packages > (namely the packages COMMON-LISP, COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT) > and some external, not CLISP specific, symbols in third-party > packages that are released with source code under a GPL compatible > license and that run in a great number of Common Lisp implementations, > i.e. if they rely on CLISP internals only to the extent needed > for gaining some functionality also available in a great number of > Common Lisp implementations. > Such user programs are not covered by the term "derived work" used in > the GNU GPL. Neither is their compiled code, i.e. the result of compiling > them by use of the function COMPILE-FILE. We refer to such user programs > as "independent work". >" > > Ah, well the whole point of UFFI (and my fork, Hello-C) is to make possible portable code, so... well, I guess you know about UFFI. That does not support CLisp (I gather) because of this concern over GPL contagion. Assuming UFFI continues its "leats common denominator"-only policy (nothing gets in that does not run everywhere), are you prepared to make a flat out statement that they are safe (so we do not need to hire lawyers to meditate on the fine points)? thx, kenny |