Re: fwd: UFFI and CLISP copyright

[Bruno H. <br...@cl...>]

J=C3=B6rg wrote:
> Kevin Rosenberg wrote in uffi-users:
> >I'm in favor of adding CLISP support to
> >UFFI. What's the legal status of incorporating modified versions of
> >your code into UFFI. UFFI, as you may know, is licensed under BSD. I
> >believe that CLISP has restrictions on referring to internal symbols
> >unless such referrents are licensed under the GPL.
>
> One would believe that note b) of COPYRIGHT applies, but
> 1. FFI is not mentioned in the explicit list of CLISP's public packages
> 2. the note says "and"
> 3. "...a great number of CL implementations"
>
> So far, my UFFI wrapper macros make use of FFI package internal stuff, but
> I don't believe that makes a difference.

We need to look what the clisp COPYRIGHT (as modified on 2004-09-15)
means for UFFI and for a program using UFFI, sepately:

=2D For UFFI: UFFI as such can be under any license, whether it runs in cli=
sp
  or not. When someone distributes UFFI combined with CLISP (i.e. a
  memory image or similar), or with the intent that it be combined with
  CLISP, then the UFFI falls under GPL, since none of the exceptions (a)
  and (b) applies. In this context is _is_ important that your
  UFFI wrapper macros make use of CLISP FFI internals; this is what
  prevents the exceptions.

=2D For a program that uses UFFI: When distributed with the intent of
  running in clisp with UFFI, it has to satisfy the copyrights of UFFI
  (no big problem - it's a BSD license) and the one of CLISP. Here the
  exception clause (b) applies, since UFFI's license is GPL compatible.

> I was wondering whether slime is better positioned than UFFI w.r.t.
> copyright issues: UFFI macros are split on a #+xyz case across each and
> every file, while slime has a easily separatable swank-clisp.lisp file.=20
> Presumably, that doesn't make a difference to a lawyer

Yes, I think so as well. What matters is the intent, not the code structure.

> (and Emacs is GPL anyway).

But whether that means that all Emacs-Lisp programs that are distributed
to the public must be under GPL, I don't know.

> Summary: it's completely unclear to me whether the UFFI package can conta=
in
> in its file #+clisp ffi:foobar forms and keep its BSD copyright.

It can. But it could not be distributed _without_source_ _for_use_with_CLIS=
P_.

Bruno