CMU-CL and lispOS
Thu, 1 May 1997 12:06:44 +0200 (MET DST)
> Bear in mind that the Linux kernel is under the GPL. So even if
> CMU-CL is not under the GNU Public License, any system built
> substantially upon the Linux work will necessarily inherit the
Wrong! That's the kind of comment that make people think
that the GPL is a crippling virus!
We can very well release software that runs on top of Unix
and *uses* Linux, without making it GPLed.
See Mathematica, Applixware, WABI, and many much more
Linux-native commercial software.
Of course, if we are to publish patches for the Linux kernel,
then *these* ought to be GPL, not the whole of our work.
For instance, see the license comments about GNU autoconf:
./configure is considered an autoconf derivative,
so any program based on configure must provide
the Configure.in autoconf input.
The rest of the program is NOT considered as an autoconf derivative,
and can have any license the author wants/needs,
though of course, he is encouraged to use GPL, too.
That said, I like the GPL indeed, and suggest we use it.
As a volontary political decision, not as a forced choice.
> and I can see the unfortunate practical reasons
> in favor of a BSD-style license.
What do you mean? BSD-style license in a same way does not prevent reuse
of code under other licenses, as long as the copyright message is kept
There are lots of myths about software licenses that prevent
people from using them and reusing each other's code.
Let's not fall in that trap!
== Fare' -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- Franc,ois-Rene' Rideau -- DDa(.ng-Vu~ Ba^n ==
Join the TUNES project for a computing system based on computing freedom !
TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient System