Time to get busy!
Sun, 4 May 1997 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
"Dwight Hughes wrote: "
> Just for the record, I have decided that Mike McDonald's quick start
> approach on a Linux/FreeBSD/... system would be most expedient. If we
> want to move it to something else after some development we can do so.
> In the meantime, we will have to rely on those who know what *must*
> be in a LispOS to keep us safe from unix damage.
> Now, which is it -- Linux or FreeBSD? If Linux, which Linux -- RedHat,
> Slackware, Debian, mkLinux?
A related issue is what position to take on Copyright issues. In my
opinion, the best would be to follow the tradition of CMUCL and
FreeBSD, i.e essentially no restrictions at all. I propose that
LispOS code should be given away freely at no cost (as is, with no
warranties) and with no other restriction than that the use of LispOS
code should be acknowledged in any redistribution.
This is somewhat different from the 'Free Software Foundation's (FSF)
approach, adopted by Linux, which through complicated restrictions,
try to ensure that derivative works are also released under the same
license. I personaly think that's unnecessary and a detriment to
If Linux is used as the basis for LispOS some care need to be taken to
stay clear of FSF license restrictions, unless, of course, it is the
consensus that LispOS should be released under FSF license too.