Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
I definitely approve of the Eclipse project's application.
I feel compelled to point out your choise of license, however.
Nothing wrong with GPL, but most Lisp projects prefer MIT/BSD-style for various reasons. For example, simpler interoperability between libraries, or a conscious choise to promote Lisp over other languages, or preferring of free-as-gift over free-as-fsf-defines-it.
Is GPL a deliberate and premeditated choise, or have you adopted it "by default"? If the former then everything is ok, but if latter then I urge you to reconsider.
I must confess that I took a long time reading almost everything on the BSD and GPL licence couple of years ago. But as far as I remember I choose the GPL because I was prefering the free-as-fsf-defines-it for an application like a window manager, that could be (if we are lucky) distribute with some linux distro on something like this. More over a window manager is not a really inovating application and almost all "algorithm" and tricky stuff are well known. So I'm not too worried for the the free-as-gift thing :o). About the "or a conscious choise to promote Lisp over other languages" I also think that using a GPL licence sometimes could be a good idea: people that would like to be inspired or integrate would be forced to put the GPL desclaimer about your Lisp stuff and that way would promote the langage as well ?
I have a netbsd maintainer at work and I already had such discussions (that can be very long :o). What I retain is that we NEED all those different license and as you point: it is important to correctly and know why we are choosing one or an ohter.
Best regards, Iban.