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 (not sure 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.
P.S. By the way, is there any way to use Arch revision system on common-lisp.net?
Thanks in advance, Yurii.
"Yurii A. Rashkovskii" yrashk@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.
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
Marco Baringer mb@bese.it writes:
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 has been pointed out this is incorrect. political reasons asside the gpl is no worse for lisp code than it is for other code.
[this thread will spiral out of contral very very quickly, i'm killing it.]
-
Marco Baringer -
Nikodemus Siivola -
Yurii A. Rashkovskii