[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Gcl-devel] GCL GPL/LGPL license

From: Eric Merritt
Subject: RE: [Gcl-devel] GCL GPL/LGPL license
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:10:22 -0700 (PDT)

--- Mike Thomas <address@hidden>
> Hi Eric.
> Welcome to GNU Common Lisp (GCL).
> I won't go into the details of the GNU licences
> (General Public Licence
> (GPL) and (Lesser General Public Licence) in this
> email but rather,

 Thats fine, I am reasonable familiar with the terms
and conditions of both licenses. My main curiosity
comes from the dual source vs binary license.

> If, instead, you include some components which are
> LGPL and others GPL, then
> the overall licence is GPL because GPL is the more
> restrictive of the two
> licences and therefore gains precedence.

 Make sense.
> It is entirely possible to build an application
> covered only by the LGPL
> from the GCL source tree.  That application is
> therefore able to benefit
> from the commonly used commercial intellectual
> property protection strategy
> of source code secrecy; you just need to link it
> without BFD, UNEXEC or any
> other GPL item that may, from time to time, find its
> way into our source
> tree.

  I am not so much interested in closed source apps
and restrictive licenses as I am in having the options
concerning the license I distribute under.

 On a side note, is removing bfd and unexec a matter
of  modifing the configs and makefile or more a matter
of modifing the gcl source. Will gcl be broken by
default without these libraries?

> You also have the opportunity to protect your
> software with the GPL, thereby
> taking the first step to ensuring that any
> contribution you make to the
> world community remains free for all to use and
> develop, in the public
> arena.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]