LLGPL Clarification

Marc Santoro ultima@tunes.org
Fri, 31 May 2002 03:32:42 -0000

Duane Rettig <duane@franz.com> said:

> Are you:
>  1. Protecting the LPGL from what you consider a threat to its
> interpretation?
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.

Thank you,
  Marc Santoro