Re: [clisp-list] Re: standalone executables & command line arguments

[Pascal B. <pj...@in...>]

Sam Steingold writes:
> > * Steven E.Harris <fru@cnavk.pbz> [2006-01-26 13:55:13 -0800]:
> >
> > Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes:
> >
> >> Nevertheless, I believe it is important that someone who receives a
> >> clisp-based application can get a clisp repl by merely typing
> >
> > I would expect it to be the prerogative of the author to make the
> > implementation decision to use CLISP or some other system, and that
> > decision here is not meant to be the business of the end-user. Why
> > must every application created with CLISP also /be/ CLISP?
> 
> because the what you are distributing (e.g., clisp executable image)
> does include full clisp (compiler, debugger &c) and I see no reason to
> prevent the user from easily accessing it.
> 
> if you want full control over your application's options, you can use a
> script.

I was thinking of legal considerations. 

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.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
        Un chat errant
se soulage
        dans le jardin d'hiver
                                        Shiki