Peter Herth <email@example.com> wrote:
| Rob Warnock wrote:
| > Some of these have BSD/MIT-style licenses, if the GPL of "Ltk"
| > doesn't work for you...
| I have to stress that Ltk is LGPL *not* GPL.
Oops! Correction noted.
| That means you are free to use it even in commercial/closed source
| programs. The only restriction is, that if you change the Ltk code
| itself, you may not distribute it without publishing the source of
| your changes, but all application code using Ltk can be as closed
| source as you want :).
| By choosing the LGPL as license for the Ltk code I do not want
| to limit the use of Ltk in any way, but only ensure, that every
| change to Ltk itself gets back to the Lisp community.
| If there are any problems with the Ltk license, please point
| them out. I do not want license problems to prevent its usage.
Apologies. I didn't mean to be critical. Your package looks like
a very nice contribution to the state of the art, and is appreciated.
But it's not clear that the LGPL "does the right thing" when applied
to Lisp code, which is why Franz invented the LLGPL:
It's not even 100% certain (IMHO) that the LLGPL doesn't violate the
LGPL, since provision #10 of the LGPL says:
... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein. ...
which the LLGPL "preamble" perhaps violates by making its "certain
clarifications" of the LGPL (specifically, those affecting #5 & #6).
Still, the LLGPL is probably better than the LGPL for Lisp code, and
a number of packages now use it, so if you could see your way clear
to using it instead of the LGPL, some of us would probably feel more
Thanks again for the nice library...
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607