On Nov 5, 3:33 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you sure? You're not modifying the clojure source, so you're not > creating a derivative work. I would think you can create a GPL > licensed library in that case.
I can, but noone else will be allowed to redistribute it or works based upon it because the GPL disallows combining the work with CPL'd code. Imagine this scenario: There's a GPL'd Java library A. Its license disallows combining it with something CPL'd like Clojure. I can't release a programme based upon both Clojure and A because by doing so, I'd be combining A with Clojure. The CPL doesn't care, but the GPL does. I should probably have stated this more explicitely. > Anyone who uses your library and > distributes the result would have to GPL their work. If I create a library and put a GPL + “special Clojure exception” (analogous to the OpenSSL exception that is so common) on it (or maybe a GPL + “CPL exception” or whatever), then yes, something like that will be the result. And that would be a fine situation, if Clojure code could only call other Clojure code. But obviously, most GPL'd Java libraries don't do this, if only for the fact that their authors didn't know or care about Clojure when they started their project. > It's analagous to claiming that Intel > have to GPL their design for the x86 chips that Linux runs on, because > Linux itself is GPL. This analogy seems to evade my mind. Matthias --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
