[admin] new project suggestion

[Marco Baringer]

"Yurii A. Rashkovskii" <yrashk at fp.org.ua> writes:

> > I'd prefer the license issues were settled before a hosting decision
> > is made. We generally recommend MIT/BSD-style licenses, and LLGPL
> > over GPL, but GPL is ok too.
> >
> > Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "development engine". Is
> > that another name for IDE, or something totally different?
>
> Basically, it is a set of libraries to build frame and
> workflow-based applications atop of them and probably some tool
> applications inside (notsure yet).
>
> > Otherwise I approve -- pending the license.
>
> Well, GPL seems to meet most of my requirements for licensing
> issues, so I'll prefer using it.

This means that you can't _use_ BSD code and distribute the result.

>From section 2 of the GPL:
-----
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.
-----

This means that you'll have to find a GPL'd compiler to target, and
you'll only be able to use GPL'd libraries. The fact the lisp leaves
you no option but to "link" directly to other code makes the GPL far
more restrictive than it is for compile-edit-debug languages.

> P.S. By the way, is there any way to use Arch revision system
> oncommon-lisp.net?

the following projects already do: ubf, bese and ucw. I'd be happy to
give you a hand setting it up if need be.

> Thanks in 
> advance,Yurii.

-- 
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
     -Leonard Cohen