From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2003-05-18 14:17:43
|
> * In message <200...@is...> > * On the subject of "clarification on clisp license" > * Sent on Sat, 17 May 2003 18:24:57 -0700 > * Honorable do...@is... (Don Cohen) writes: > > The license seems to say that any program using FFI must be GPL. > If I understand correctly, that means that if you wanted to sell a > program that runs in clisp and uses some library like openGL or X > windows you could still break it into two pieces: > - the clisp interface to the library, which would have to be released > under GPL > - your application that uses the interface, which you could still > sell without disclosing the source > > Is this correct? I think so. Note that due to the intended nature of GPL, the above _must_ be _wrong_, i.e., if your application uses the GPLed interface, then it _must_ be GPLed. CLISP COPYRIGHT says that the applications that can run in _any_ CL, do not have to be GPLed; so if your application relies on the openGL interface which is available also to, say, CMUCL, then your application is not GPLed. That said, I must add that, first, IANAL, and, second, I do not speak for Bruno, who is the authority on the matter since he is the main copyright holder. Bruno is free to interpret this as he wishes (he wrote the COPYRIGHT file). I think the above is now sufficiently confusing, so I am through. I hope Bruno will clarify the matter. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat9 GNU/Linux <http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/> <http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html> Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk? |