[admin] OT: GPL. Was: new project suggestion

[Nikodemus Siivola]

Ok, this really went off topic.

[ Disclaimer: I'm NOT speaking as a representative of Common-lisp.net
  below, but as a private individual with private opinions and views. ]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:49:59PM +0100, Marco Baringer wrote:

> > 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.

As much as I'd hope it was so, it ain't. ;)

 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses

The definition of gpl-compatible is on the same page. Outcome: GPL'd
code can use BSD code as much as it wants.

What GPL *does* mean, is that non-GPL projects cannot use the
code. And since many lispers prefer non-GPL licenses that is usually a
fairly significant factor -- for libraries at least.

> 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.

As above, not so.

> 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.

This is very true. Where two C-programs talk over a pipe, the natural
lisp way is a normal function call. Non-GPL code can use GPL'd code
over a pipe (or a socket, or whatever), but not via a function call.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus Siivola, in favor of free-as-in-gift