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