On Nov 2, 10:31 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (There are examples of projects 'weakening' the GPL in various ways > to suit their needs.)
Just out of curiosity (I don't have an interest in this particular issue at the moment so I'm not taking a side in this debate), what would be a concrete example in which Clojure would benefit from having a different license than it does now? There is precedent for being concerned about licenses in the Lisp world mainly because the LGPL (for example) makes distinctions between "work that uses a library" and "derivative work of the library" that seem more relevant to the C way of doing things than to the Lisp way. (For example, deciding whether something is a derivative work of an LGPL library requires looking at how much content it takes from the library's header files. Lisp doesn't have header files, oops!) Franz Inc. has their own variant of the LGPL specifically to address such concerns: http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html If you are interested in debates about licenses for other Lisp systems, you may also wish to look at the ECL (Embeddable Common Lisp) e-mail archives. ECL is in the interesting position of being both an ANSI Common Lisp implementation and a C library (with header files as well as shared or static object files). mfh --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
