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: David Kastrup on 25 Mar 2010 11:40 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: > >> The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for >> libraries. > > The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact > that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. Correction: for equivalents to already existing established libraries. And the problem is not "poor fit", but "incentive for change". > Renaming it to the Lesser GPL isn't likely to convince anyone old > enough to remember, or intelligent enough to do a little research. A name is a name. -- David Kastrup
From: Peter Keller on 25 Mar 2010 11:50 In comp.lang.lisp Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> wrote: > 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. Not that I really care, and I probably won't post in this thread again, but the GPL V2 has to say: "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." So, that covers one not having to ship the glibc sources with your project just because you linked with it. However, if you have a modified version of the glibc in your package, then you'd have to make the modified sources available. Then it goes on to say: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License." It is that "permit linking proprietary applications" phrase which is the rub. It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both. Hence, the LGPL. If you're still curious, then read the faq: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html It has a few different scenarios about what it means to link with a GPL library. Later, -pete
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 12:00 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Static linking is "mere aggregation" of (sub)programs with relocation > > and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking. > > No, static linking results in a combined work since the > elements are chosen with intention and by design, much Ha ha. So the GPL "mere aggregation" applies only to random aggregations? > as would be the case for stories in an anthology. Mere An anthology is "mere aggregation" of literary works. > aggregation corresponds to shipping a pile of books in > one box. Think of shipping a pile of e-books in own file. That's what static linking is as far as copyright is concerned because relocation and symbol resolution are irrelevant details regarding copyright. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 25 Mar 2010 12:14 On 2010-03-25 09:59:52 -0400, Tamas K Papp said: > 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 I don't put much stock in such rationalizations. IOW, having released the Library GPL, they realized that it was in many ways superior to the GPL from both the user and the open source perspective. They've been backpedaling ever since, and the frankly silly renaming of the Library GPL to the Lesser GPL is a clear sign of this ongoing attempt at damage control. I.e., when I say they recognize that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries, I'm saying that their actions (release of the LGPL and subsequent renaming) speak louder and more convincingly than their words (the link you provide). > > 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. I don't think their objective functions differ much from mine. I think they don't appreciate how the license plays out in the real world. Those who support the GPL for libraries think that by doing so they maximize the promotion of open source. I contend that the LGPL or Apache or APSL license lead to greater amounts of open source because a GPL library excludes one of the largest pools of possible contributors - professional developers who work on closed source projects. These potential contributors will instead either 1. reinvent that particular wheel in a closed source fashion (loss to free software) 2. use a library with a license that doesn't require any publication such as the bsd, or mit. (possible loss to free software) 3. use a library with a license that requires publication only of covered code such as the LGPL, APSL, Apache, etc. Only this last case inevitably results in more open source. So by releasing a library under the GPL one provides as many ways for open source to lose as to win. Choosing the winning path in the first place by releasing the library under the LGPL/LLGPL/Apache etc. license leads to the biggest gains for open source. Again, the recognition of this reality is what led to the Library GPL in the first place. So people who support the GPL for libraries are unwittingly advocating for freedom in a way that actually results in less open source. Even if I don't convince my correspondents here, I do hope that some of those reading this thread will develop a more nuanced view of open source licenses. I've said what I have to say, so (undoubtedly much to your relief), I'll stop. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 12:17
Peter Keller wrote: [...] > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html "What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide." To wit: http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/MootFacts.pdf (Moot Court Statements of Fact) http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/OmegaBrief.pdf (Omega Plaintiff's Brief) http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/AlphaBrief.pdf (Alpha Defendant's Brief) http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/03.%20Beyond%20the%20Basics%20-%20Moot%20Court.mp3 (Hearing and Q&A) ------- The Scope of "Derivative Works" as Applied to Software: David Bender of White & Case LLP and author of Computer Law and Ieuan Mahony of Holland & Knight LLP will argue the proper scope of "derivative work" under U.S. copyright law when applied to software, before a panel of distinguished federal appellate judges: * HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BRYSON, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit * HONORABLE HALDANE ROBERT MAYER, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit * HONORABLE MARGARET MCKEOWN, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ------- It didn't bode well for the copyleft side... regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) |