Fri, 31 May 2002 03:32:42 -0000
Duane Rettig <email@example.com> said:
> Are you:
> 1. Protecting the LPGL from what you consider a threat to its
Not really -- I have no desire to protect any particular license, but
rather use one that is ideal.
> 2. Considering using LLPGL as an alternative form of licensing, based
> on the metaprogramming issues you are surely facing?
This is closer.
> 3. ... ?
Here we go. I would like to find a license that satisfies my desires
completely :) I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to write a license
myself. But I do know that other licenses have serious inadequacies; the
BUGROFF license, as well as Public Domain, seem to be the best way to
release source code.
My primary concern in relation with the LLGPL is that after discovering a
license being promoted by one of the premier Lisp vendors, I find I would
not want to license my own code under it. Ideally, I would like Franz (or
anyone/group with enough legal expertise to write a license) to take my
ideas into consideration in preparing a revision of the LLGPL.
Lisp shares a lot of traits with other languages, and I also feel that were
a new, better license to be created, it could be created in a way that
would allow it to work for more languages. And if it was extremely well
developed, perhaps many of these squabbles would go away. I know of several
other groups (such as the Squeak group) which have similar licensing issues
because the language is too complicated for the license.