[Gcl-devel] Re: [Maxima] Re: GCL compliance and Bill Schelter

[Nicolas Neuss]

Adam Warner <address@hidden> writes:

> I agree that this is sort of what CLISP is trying to achieve with their
> exception clause, and it is done so quite successfully by simply
> referencing package names and external symbols as defined in the ANSI CL
> standard.
> 
> Note that the moment one references a non-specified CLISP package or
> non-external symbol at least part of the code is no longer an
> independent work:
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/~checkout~/clisp/clisp/COPYRIGHT
> 
> It appears to have been revised for memory images. It seems fair that if
> one references a non-external, etc. symbol that only the sources to all
> the parts that are not defined as "independent work" must be disclosed.

Hmm.  What about interfacing via CLOCC?  By this reasoning, CLOCC has to be
GPLed because it accesses internal symbols for CLISP.  What about programs
using CLOCC then?

Nicolas.