Re: Identifying CL Implementations?

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:22:32 +0100, J.C. Roberts <unknown-NOSPAM-@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:54:19 -0500, Sam Steingold <sds@xxxxxxx> wrote:

* J.C. Roberts <haxabja-ABFCNZ-@xxxxxxxx> [2005-11-15 09:46:35 -0800]:

If the LGPL licensing of the CLOCC/PORT code was actually clear, it
would already be integrated into every CL implementation as the de
facto portability abstraction. Since it has not been integrated
everywhere, you need to ask yourself why?

if lisp is so great, linux and windows would have been implemented in it.
since lisp is actually not used by anyone, you need to ask yourself why? 

Sam,

Please, there's no need for the nonsense. I'm not here to fight you or
disrespect the terms under which you license your work. I've been a bit
of pain only in an attempt to be responsible about the legal aspects of
your licensing.

If you really think licenses should be blatantly ignored, then just put
all your code into the public domain and it will no longer be an issue
for anyone. If think licenses should be respected, then you need to
clarify your licensing terms so your code will be more useful and
useable.

JCR 

Given that the authors of the library clearly want the source to
be available and usable also in commercial applications.. Yes
Exactly who is going to sue you?
Even if the wording of the LGPL is dubious the intention
of the creators is not. But if you have to be doubly sure
track down the original authors and make a separate contract.
I feel you are all to quick to dismiss it over what I consider
a technicality.

I haven't read the wording of LGPL in a while but I seem to remember
that it states that the library can be used in a commercial setting
provided changes TO THE LIBRARY are made publicly available.
Ie. though the library code is shared the program using the code
can still be proprietary. People have been developing commercial
code with gcc for years and I have never heard of any lawsuits.
That is because the C libraries are LGPL.

Now, say, EMACS is GPL. That means all changes to the code have
to be made publicly available. It is in other words not legal
to create a new EMACS based on the existing code and the sell it
commercially.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Picking a license
    ... between libraries and programs multiple times, ... permissive licensing for all things which are not perceived to be ... said PyQt was only marginally useful. ... Because you followed on from writing about PyQt by introducing the ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Usage of code samples in commercial applications
    ... snippets are doing it because they got something from somewhere at some ... I've actually ended up using some libraries because of the free classes I've ... they were very clear about licensing (the ... Is it legal to use code samples found in sites like Codeguru/ CodeProject ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Python doc problem example: gzip module (reprise)
    ... > I'm not talking about 3rd party libraries, ... to including documentation in the distribution. ... of which licensing is just the beginning. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Efficiency of dotnet licensing?
    ... I am developing a C# class library, which I would like to protect with ... the standard .net licensing scheme. ... I think you can only make classes (not entire libraries) ... classes could check if the singleton has been ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.csharp.general)
  • Re: license question?
    ... Under the circumstances I tend to avoid even LGPL ... -the users of my libraries will see it the same way. ... then someone would try to exploit the code under the license ... But static linking doesn't comtaminate anything. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)