[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL complianc
[Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL
14 Jul 2003 15:39:07 -0400
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Greetings, and thank you so much for this helpful reply!
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes, re: Readline:
> The situation with GCL is not analogous to the previous
> situation with CLISP. At the time, CLISP was non-free.
> So you don't have a problem.
OK, so I take it that technically this means that, in Sam Steingold's
approximate earlier words, that GCL has special permission to use
readline under the LGPL. Thanks!
If this is correctly understood, we might need to know how to indicate
this on the website and/or in the COPYING files so that this issue
isn't raised again.
I'm also assuming that, now that we know this option is available,
that it is also the most desirable, including most importantly from
the 'strategic' perspective of the FSF. To my understanding, placing
software under the GPL is 'to be strategically preferred' when it
provides a clear technical advantage over analogous software in the
closed source world. As GCL's advantages in this respect are arguably
still somewhat tenuous, it would appear that the LGPL is the way to go
I'm including the three other options considered earlier before we
knew of this possibility below for easy reference. If my assumptions
are incorrect and any interested parties feel that one of the choices
below is preferable to keeping readline and the LGPL for GCL as is,
please let me know. Otherwise I'll consider this issue closed, and
place the note granting permission above on the website and in the
COPYING files in some manner to clarify the legitimacy of GCL's LGPL
Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
> Greetings, and thanks for your reply!
> David Turner <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 21:47, Camm Maguire wrote:
> > > It appears we have several options:
> > >
> > > 1) remove or replace readline in GCL and keep the LGPL
> > > 2) make use of the clause you cite below for a multiple license
> > > strategy depending on whether readline is linked in.
> > > 3) make GCL GPL and add a note in the COPYING file allowing
> > > proprietary images built with proprietary standard common lisp
> > > code.
> > >
> > > My first question is concerning the difference in practice between the
> > > LGPL and the GPL with the clause as in 3). Aren't they completely
> > > equivalent? It would not appear that option 3) would pose a
> > > significant obstacle to anyone.
> > I'm not sure I fully understand clause 3. Note that the LGPL's section
> > 6 does impose some restrictions on software that links to the library.
> As for clause 3), this refers to the paragraph GPL'ed CLISP uses to
> allow proprietary images built with the compiler, as suggested by Sam
> As for the users who want to build proprietary software with GCL, you
> can add a clause to GCL's COPYING file, similar to the one in the CLISP
> This copyright does *not* cover user programs that run in CLISP and
> third-party packages not part of CLISP, if they only reference external
> symbols in CLISP's public packages (namely the packages COMMON-LISP,
> COMMON-LISP-USER, KEYWORD, EXT), i.e. if they don't rely on CLISP
> internals and would as well run in any other Common Lisp implementation.
> Such user programs are not covered by the term "derived work" used in
> the GNU GPL. Neither is their compiled code, i.e. the result of compiling
> them by use of the function COMPILE-FILE. We refer to such user programs
> as "independent work".
> You may copy and distribute memory image files generated by the
> function SAVEINITMEM, if it was generated only from CLISP and independent
> work, and provided that you accompany them, in the sense of section 3
> of the GNU GPL, with the source code of CLISP - precisely the same CLISP
> version that was used to build the memory image -, the source or compiled
> code of the user programs needed to rebuild the memory image (source
> code for all the parts that are not independent work, see above), and
> a precise description how to rebuild the memory image from these.
> Could you please elaborate on the restrictions implied by LGPL section
> 6 to which you refer?
> > > That having been said, I feel that, as long as the right to compile
> > > proprietary programs is safeguarded, the decision ought to be a
> > > strategic one made primarily by the FSF. The code has copyright
> > > comments throughout listing primarily Dr. Schelter as the copyright
> > > holder, through a few other individuals are also named. As the
> > > primary author is deceased, it would make sense to take some steps
> > > toward a transfer of the copyright to the FSF if this is at all
> > > possible. I don't know if anyone else can be guaranteed to be around
> > > long enough to fulfill this role otherwise.
> > You would have to talk to RMS about FSF accepting copyright assignment,
> > and Dr. Schelter's heirs or assignees about assigning.
> Unfortunately, there is very little chance I will have time for this,
> so the current situation regarding copyright assignment is likely to
> remain unchanged unless someone else volunteers.
> Take care,
> > --
> > -Dave Turner
> > GPL Compliance Engineer
> > Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
> Camm Maguire address@hidden
> "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
> Gcl-devel mailing list
Camm Maguire address@hidden
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
- [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL,
Camm Maguire <=
- [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/15
- [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Camm Maguire, 2003/07/15
- [Axiom-developer] RE: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Mike Thomas, 2003/07/16
- [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/17
- [Axiom-developer] RE: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Mike Thomas, 2003/07/17
- [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/18
- [Axiom-developer] RE: [Maxima] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Stavros Macrakis, 2003/07/18
- [Axiom-developer] RE: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Mike Thomas, 2003/07/20
- [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Richard Stallman, 2003/07/21
- Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL, Camm Maguire, 2003/07/17