Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 22 Mar 2010 20:01 On 2010-03-22 16:51:46 -0400, John Hasler said: > I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD. 1. Linux isn't a *library*, it's an operating system. A GPL operating system doesn't force GPL licensing for any application that runs on it. A GPL library *does* force GPL licensing for any program that links with it. Again, the LLGPL was created for precisely this purpose. 2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems> warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: John Hasler on 22 Mar 2010 20:28 Ralph writes: > Mac OS X is BSD Unix. No it isn't. It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a partial BSD userland. And Apple contributes little or nothing back. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 22 Mar 2010 21:45 On 2010-03-22 20:28:25 -0400, John Hasler said: > No it isn't. The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ: <http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/brand3581.htm> <http://www.opengroup.org/homepage-items/c399.html> > It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a > partial BSD userland. And Apple contributes little or nothing back. <http://www.apple.com/opensource/> lists scores of open source components that form part of Mac OS X and to which Apple contributes its enhancements. The market reality is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: John Hasler on 22 Mar 2010 22:48 Ralph writes: > The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to > differ: Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX does not make it a BSD. > The market reality... ....is irrelevant to many of us. > ...is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in > part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the GPL allow > these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects. The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit them to keep some of their changes secret. This is the very reason some programmers use the GPL. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: refun on 22 Mar 2010 23:08
In article <871vfbzrb8.fsf(a)thumper.dhh.gt.org>, jhasler(a)newsguy.com says... > The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit > them to keep some of their changes secret. This is the very reason some > programmers use the GPL. While I respect Pascal's decision to use whatever license he wants to use, it might be worth noticing that a good majority of Common Lisp libraries(besides Pascal's and a handful of others) are licensed under BSD, LLGPL, MIT or public domain. GPL seems to be an unpopular choice for Common Lisp code, especially libraries. This means that in practice, people will pick a license which grants them more effective rights, and doesn't force them to release the code to their entire application just because they used a handful of functions from another library which is licensed under GPL. In most of the cases, even if other people don't have the intention of going commercial, they like to have the option, which is why GPLed libraries are usually unpopular with Common Lisp developers. |