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 25 Mar 2010 09:44 On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said: > There's nothing ironic about it. The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, > so licenses code whichever way works best. Libraries sometimes have > different needs from applications. Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more useful licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser) GPL. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 09:51 On 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, > and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit > for libraries which is why they created the Library > (now Lesser) GPL. The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. They believe that when there are good non-free alternatives to free libraries, they should use the LGPL for the free libraries so that users will have at least some freedom. When there are no good non-free versions available, they will use the GPL to maximize freedom for users.
From: Tamas K Papp on 25 Mar 2010 09:59 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:44:14 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said: > >> There's nothing ironic about it. The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, so >> licenses code whichever way works best. Libraries sometimes have >> different needs from applications. > > Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more useful > licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the FSF is > the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor > fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser) > GPL. I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a "poor fit" for libraries. Quite the opposite (see [1]). They just recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted to give them the choice. But the GPL is still the option they recommend, even for libraries. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html Regarding the broader issue (of how people license their libraries): I think this is an optimization problem where people have heterogeneous objective functions, and thus trying to convince people to pick another license is not always a worthwhile. It is possible that someone using a GPL/LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/... license is perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages, it is just that they decided to make a different choice. In which case, threads like these are unlikely to be fruitful. Regards, Tamas
From: David Kastrup on 25 Mar 2010 10:05 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: > On 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: >> It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, >> and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit >> for libraries which is why they created the Library >> (now Lesser) GPL. > > The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for > libraries. They believe that when there are good non-free > alternatives to free libraries, they should use the LGPL > for the free libraries so that users will have at least > some freedom. When there are no good non-free versions > available, they will use the GPL to maximize freedom for > users. More pragmatically: they want their licenses to be taken seriously. That involves being able to go after violations in court and/or settlements with good chances of success. Licenses covering a work "as a whole" are hard to press when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes "mere aggregation" a really good defense. -- David Kastrup
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 10:27
On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Licenses covering a work "as a whole" are hard to press > when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in > replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes > "mere aggregation" a really good defense. This is completely wrong. The GPL applies to work as a whole only when the GPL-covered work is made part of a combined work and that combined work is copied and distributed. Your statement sounds as if you continue to believe incorrectly that a program which uses a dynamically linked library covered by the GPL is subject to the GPL even when it is copied and distributed without that library. That is not so. Copyright law is about copying, and when a GPL-covered work is not being copied and distributed, the GPL cannot come into play. What the program does when it runs is not relevant for falling under the GPL because the GPL does not restrict running covered works. Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components. Mere aggregation refers to including a covered work on a medium of distribution along with other works. |