Re: clarification on clisp license

[Sam S. <sd...@gn...>]

> * In message <160...@ho...>
> * On the subject of "Re: clarification on clisp license"
> * Sent on Sun, 18 May 2003 17:52:01 +0200 (CEST)
> * Honorable Bruno Haible <br...@cl...> writes:
>
> > 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.
> 
> But it would be very underhanded to tell someone: "Oh your interface
> is an extension of clisp, give it to us in GPL'ed source code", and
> after he's done that and after we've added his code to clisp, we tell
> him "So you are now using a clisp internal, you must give us your
> whole application". That's the letter of the GPL, yes, but it's
> unethical.

tell this to RMS.

> So the question is: How does clisp's copyright scale when someone adds
> a new package to it? My proposal is: Let the contributor decide
> whether the new package shall be considered a "clisp internal" or a
> "public package" (like #<PACKAGE EXT>).

fine by me.

Note that RMS will not buy this.

-- 
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>
God had a deadline, so He wrote it all in Lisp.