Prev: cl-who code
Next: Why the hell isn't package-nicknames setf'able ?
From: Didier Verna on 31 May 2010 11:21
pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:

> Didier Verna <didier(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>
>> ...for your Common Lisp software ?
>
> GPL, because I want to see your code too! :-)

I seem to remember that some people find the GPL not very well suited
to Lisp (somewhat like for C++ code consisting of almost only
templates). I know of the LLGPL but the Franz preamble seems out of date
wrt the current version of the LGPL itself...

--
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.

Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com
From: Captain Obvious on 31 May 2010 13:13
DV> ...for your Common Lisp software ?

LLGPL.

Since it contains lots of legalese bullshit, I usually clarify what I mean:
it is OK to use library in any application, but if you modify library itself
and distribute it in one way or another, I'd like to see modifications
(hopefully, improvements).

From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 31 May 2010 13:31
Didier Verna <didier(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:

> pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
>
>> Didier Verna <didier(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>>
>>> ...for your Common Lisp software ?
>>
>> GPL, because I want to see your code too! :-)
>
> I seem to remember that some people find the GPL not very well suited
> to Lisp (somewhat like for C++ code consisting of almost only
> templates). I know of the LLGPL but the Franz preamble seems out of date
> wrt the current version of the LGPL itself...

But AFAIK, LLGPL is derived from LGPL, and LGPL doesn't let me see
your code too. It just let your customers see my code (which is good
enough, I'd agree, but I'm curious).

Well, not only curious, but I have often enough had to explain to
potential customers that I cannot help them because they don't have
the sources of the software package that is giving them headaches.

I could sell them some maintainance if they had the sources; they
definitely could not pay me to develop of a replacement package, and
unfortunately, their commercial proprietary vendor is not interesting
in caring for their specific needs.

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: D Herring on 31 May 2010 15:48
On 05/31/2010 06:02 AM, Didier Verna wrote:
>
> ...for your Common Lisp software ?

IMO, people should consider the Boost Software License for libraries.

* "Standard" libraries need to be usable in both free and commercial
code. Thus GCC and its libs do not require GPL.
* The LGPL is complicated. The LLGPL...
* BSD with advertising puts an undue burden on users of many
libraries. (Even FreeBSD backing away)
* MIT is almost right

The BSL was designed in 2003 to address these and other issues. Give
it a read.
http://www.boost.org/users/license.html

- Daniel
From: Rob Warnock on 31 May 2010 21:04
D Herring <dherring(a)at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
+---------------
| On 05/31/2010 06:02 AM, Didier Verna wrote:
| > ...for your Common Lisp software ?
|
| IMO, people should consider the Boost Software License for libraries.
|
| * "Standard" libraries need to be usable in both free and commercial
| code. Thus GCC and its libs do not require GPL.
| * The LGPL is complicated. The LLGPL...
| * BSD with advertising puts an undue burden on users of many
| libraries. (Even FreeBSD backing away)
| * MIT is almost right
|
| The BSL was designed in 2003 to address these and other issues.
| Give it a read.
| http://www.boost.org/users/license.html
+---------------

Even better (IMHO) is the ISC license [used on BIND, etc.]:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt

which is now what OpenBSD is using for all new software, see:

http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
...
ISC
The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright
with language removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention.
This is the preferred license for new code incorporated into OpenBSD.
A sample license is included in the source tree as
/usr/src/share/misc/license.template.

Despite being called "functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright"
it actually reads more like an even-simpler MIT license.

Anyway, that's what I'm using these days...


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: cl-who code
Next: Why the hell isn't package-nicknames setf'able ?