[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:10:55 -0000
User-agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies)

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:44:14 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:

> On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said:
>> There's nothing ironic about it.  The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, so
>> licenses code whichever way works best.  Libraries sometimes have
>> different needs from applications.
> Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more useful
> licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the FSF is
> the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor
> fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser)
> GPL.

I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a "poor
fit" for libraries.  Quite the opposite (see [1]).  They just
recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer
something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted to give them the
choice.  But the GPL is still the option they recommend, even for


Regarding the broader issue (of how people license their libraries): I
think this is an optimization problem where people have heterogeneous
objective functions, and thus trying to convince people to pick
another license is not always a worthwhile.

It is possible that someone using a GPL/LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/... license
is perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages, it is just that
they decided to make a different choice.  In which case, threads like these 
are unlikely to be fruitful.



reply via email to

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