Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: [gnu.org #48656] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> We should think seriously about switching GCL to the GPL,
> not assume that the goal is to avoid this.
> 
>     2) I am concerned with free software authors who might insist for some
>        reason on a BSD-like license.  Specifically axiom.
> 
> Would they have any particular rational reason for thinking they need
> this?  Note that we have no intention of changing to either of the BSD
> licenses.

There were discussions on comp.lang.lisp several times about the
appropriateness of GPL and even LGPL for Lisp programs.  I think the
general feeling is shown well in

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=87wvrekb09.fsf@tninkpad.telent.net

Franz Inc. even thought they had to modify the LGPL, see

http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html

I think it would be reasonable if the FSF would clarify its position in
this matter.

At the moment I prefer the BSD licenses because I also think that it is too
difficult to integrate GPL code with software under different licenses in
the tight coupling of a Lisp environment.  In addition to Franz Inc.'s
concerns, there is one more point which I find critical with the LGPL, and
this is that it allows the user to update to the GPL.  That is, there might
be a free software zealot who takes an LGPL'd library, improves the code
somewhat and starts a concurrence project under GPL.  This might be
disastrous to the LGPL'd form of the library.  (I want to add that I cannot
estimate how realistic this scenario is.)

>     3) I feel that any 'predominant' free compiler for a given language
>        will likely not restrict the license of code merely compiled with
>        it.
> 
> That is true in any case.  Code compiled with GCL's compiler is
> copyright by its author, not by the copyright holders of GCL.

I assume you would need some exception clause to the GPL?  (As in the Bison
case.)

Nicolas.