License for Code?

[Martin B. Pomije]

cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu wrote:
> 
> Has everyone agreed upon a license to use for this project?
> 
> When contributing code, what sort of license should be used?
> GPL?
> 
> Regards,
> Ahmed

I would suggest the LGPL (Library General Public License - 
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lgpl.html  )or the Artistic 
Licence ( The one good thing about Perl - 
http://language.perl.com/misc/Artistic.html )

I think that the GPL would be impractical for a system that
was organized around similar principles as the LispM.
If we want a system that is open at many levels so that a program could
talk to any level that we want it to, there would probably be
no commercial development of software for LispOS if we used the GPL. 
(Although with Netscape's recent moves this could be changing in the
future.) Another thing is that some people who develop free software
feel better ethically releasing under a BSD-type license.  Both these
groups could get by with both of these licenses.  They provide a fair
amount of protection from a product being "hijacked" by a company and
being turned into non-free software, without the virus-like nature of
the GPL (meaning that any program linked to a GPLed program must also be
GPLed).

I think that it is reasonable to assume that products like Netscape or
Star Office would not of been released for Linux it's C library had not
been GPLed.  It may be true that certain types of necessary software,
such as accounting, may not be done as free software in the present
environment because they are not interesting enough to attract hackers.

LispOS will need to overcome a lot of resistance.  We need to make sure
that it is at least possible to develop commercial software on it.

IMNSHO, the LGPL is our best option.
-- 
*********************************************
Semi-encrypted email address: m_b_p_o_m_i_j_e_ a_t_ i_n_a_v_ d_o_t_
n_e_t_
All non-solicited commercial email will be billed $1,000.