From: Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll <jlr@mp...> - 2004-08-05 08:12:44
I am having now some thoughts about the license with which ECL is being
distributed. Basically, the copyright file is confusing, because it sums
both a BSD and a GNU Lesser Public License (LGPL) for the same
distribution. However, due to the more restrictive nature of the later,
ECL can be considered as a LGPL development environment.
As far as I understand, LGPL is ok for propietary projects, because one
only needs to distribute the source code and the changes that you made
to ECL, while keeping your own code free from license issues (as far as
it does not change or extend the functionality provided by ECL).
Am I wrong? I personally would prefer a BSD style license, but at the
moment I took over making EcoLisp into ECL, I had to use whatever
license it came with it (and to me it seemed better than the GPL under
which CLISP is being distributed).
What do users think about this issue? Is anybody being "scared away"
from using ECL because of the LGPL?
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Quantenoptik +49/(0)89/32905-345
Hans-Kopfermann-Str. 1, D-85748 http://www.mpq.mpg.de/Theorygroup/CIRAC/
Garching b. Muenchen, Germany Juan.Ripoll@...
Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll <jlr@...> writes:
> What do users think about this issue? Is anybody being "scared away"
> from using ECL because of the LGPL?
It's not optimal, of course, but IMHO it's ok for most uses.
Julian Stecklina / _________________________/
\_________________/ LISP - truly beautiful