Re: Libraries (Was: Programming By The Seat Of Your Pants)

From: Adam Warner (usenet_at_consulting.net.nz)
Date: 10/31/03 

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:28:56 +1300

Hi David Steuber,

> Adam Warner <usenet@consulting.net.nz> writes:
>
>> Hi David Steuber,
>>
>> >> For libraries aspiring to de-facto-standardhood GPL and LGPL are not good
>> >> choices. MIT, BSD-sans-advertising, and public domain seem to me to be the
>> >> most viable choices.
>> >
>> > Although I am a big fan of the GPL, I agree with this. There may be
>> > specific exceptions (as can be found in the CLISP CVS archive).
>>
>> Be aware that the copyright holders may have no legal right to grant
>> those specific exceptions (or notes as they are called in the licence):
>> <http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/COPYRIGHT?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.11>
>>
>> The issue is that one cannot grant an exception to the terms of the GPL if
>> the licensed code is linked to any other GPLed code that is not licensed
>> with the same exceptions. So to maintain the exceptions it's usually
>> impractical to link to any other GPLed code that you don't own.
>>
>> Consider the fact that CLISP links to Readline, which is a GPLed library,
>> and that the CLISP developers have no power to relicense it under a
>> GPL+exception licence. If CLISP incorporates and distributes non-exception
>> licensed GPL software then CLISP is licensed under the GPL without
>> exception.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say. CLISP is GPL. End
> of story.

Then you're close to understanding the point. "There may be specific
exceptions (as can be found in the CLISP CVS archive)." How can there be
specific exceptions when CLISP has been linked to non-exception licensed
GPL code?

> If you do not want your Lisp project to also be GPL, then don't use
> CLISP.

Do you realise how unusual this statement is? How popular do you think the
GNU C compiler would be if compiled programs became GPLed?

> Or at least don't compile your distributed work with CLISP. Use a
> different Lisp for that.

The claims of derived works extend to more than compiled code. It is
claimed that a program that would not run as well in any other Common Lisp
implementation is a derived work and must be licensed under the GPL.
Code incorporating (ext:cd "/home/adam/") or (ext:getenv) is a derived
work since this code doesn't work in any other Common Lisp implementation.
I know this sounds insane but if you follow the original links you will
discover this is what is being claimed.

> As I'm sure you've gathered, there is no way to make CLISP not GPL
> unless you want to go back to the pre-readline code base and fork from
> there. But that won't be CLISP.
>
> The GPL is very clear in the license. Anything that uses GPL code as
> CLISP does is also GPL.

I don't want to use the GPL code. I would potentially like to distribute
programs with GNU CLISP-specific functionality running on top of
CLISP without them automatically having to be licensed under the GPL.
Distributed C programs that implement GNU C specific extensions don't
automatically have to be licensed under the GPL.

> If you want a readline library without being GPL, you need to look at
> the BSD readline library that is not part of GNU.
>
> I don't think a license debate is really on topic per se. However,
> anyone who wishes to avoid the viral like nature of GPL should not use
> CLISP as their Lisp system. There are other free alternatives. CMUCL
> and SBCL are examples.

Regards,
Adam

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CL Insight...
    ... > your proprietary products based on CLISP. ... > distributed under the GPL rather than the LGPL, ... Since 1) today clisp can be compiled without readline, ... under a different license. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Libraries (Was: Programming By The Seat Of Your Pants)
    ... > Although I am a big fan of the GPL, ... > specific exceptions. ... impractical to link to any other GPLed code that you don't own. ... Consider the fact that CLISP links to Readline, which is a GPLed library, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: SBCL on WIN32
    ... > I fail to see the problem? ... Even if you don't like the GPL, ... > just CLISP that is under that license, not the stuff you develop on ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Libraries (Was: Programming By The Seat Of Your Pants)
    ... CLISP is GPL. ... to were not exceptions to the GPL license. ... A Lisp image contains the Lisp runtime. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Libraries (Was: Programming By The Seat Of Your Pants)
    ... >> Although I am a big fan of the GPL, ... > those specific exceptions: ... > Consider the fact that CLISP links to Readline, which is a GPLed library, ... I don't think a license debate is really on topic per se. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)