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 23 Mar 2010 01:19 On 2010-03-22 22:48:27 -0400, John Hasler said: > Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX > does not make it a BSD. Being a derivative of 4.4 BSD makes it a BSD; Being certified by the Open Group makes it a UNIX. Mac OS X is a BSD UNIX. > >> The market reality... > > ...is irrelevant to many of us. Many may wish it weren't relevant, but it is. The FSF recognized that the GPL was a poor match for the market realities of library use nearly 20 years ago when the FSF created the GNU Library Public License, now the Lesser GPL, for precisely this reason. > >> ...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. People and organizations who want to keep code secret are going to do so. It is naive to think that they will change their whole business model just to use a library. Instead, they will use libraries with licenses that allow them to keep some code private while still open sourcing other code thus contributing to the sum total of open source code. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Lieven Marchand on 23 Mar 2010 04:53 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in > terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their > source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows > them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use > of the GPL CLISP). As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your commercial applications compiled and dumped with it.
From: Nicolas Neuss on 23 Mar 2010 06:06 David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> writes: > That does not keep other people from contributing relevant portions of > code under the GPL, if they so desire. Of course, and it should not. But I think that people contributing to a library usually do so under the same license which is used for the original body of code, especially if it is a "fair" license like GPL or BSD which does not give any particular group of people special rights. Nicolas
From: Hyman Rosen on 23 Mar 2010 09:11 On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > 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. It is not correct to say that Mac OS X "is" BSD Unix for normal definitions of "is". Look at <http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-105/>. The mix of licenses is broad, but many of Apple's own OS components are licensed under the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE, found at <http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/>. It has these key provisions: If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site). ... In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to any person or entity receiving or distributing Covered Code under this License a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, sublicense, distribute and Externally Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Apple's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 23 Mar 2010 09:30
On 2010-03-23 04:53:04 -0400, Lieven Marchand said: > As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your > commercial applications compiled and dumped with it. My understanding is that if your published application (commercial or otherwise) uses facilities of CLISP not generally available in other lisps (i.e., CLISP specific extensions to common lisp) then you would be required to release the source of your application under the GPL. IOW, an application that could just as easily be distributed using sbcl or ccl, etc. does not need to open its source, but one that is clisp specific does. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro |