libera/#commonlisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
21:19:21
NotThatRPG
petalisp looks really cool, but the license is problematic. It would be nice if we could build images using it that are not also licensed under AGPL, but that seems impossible. I like the idea of making it available in a copy-left way, but the idea that any code calling petalisp must also be copyleft is more restrictive than I can live with :-(
3:41:51
jackdaniel
if I had an euro for each time people complain about copyleft licenses (but not having problems with fully closed software), then I'd have a nice unicode coffee
3:56:05
aeth
LGPL seems to have a more negative attitude, justifiably so because of the, uh, complications
3:56:32
aeth
there's the LLGPL which shouldn't be necessary due to the FSF's stance, but the LGPL as intended makes packaging way more complicated because the typical way to package is to dump it all in one image
3:57:03
aeth
the GPL stuff just seems to be in line with the general attitude in the Microsoft Github era of open source
3:59:02
aeth
the only problem is when there's a basic, core, low-level library that's recommended (e.g. defstar for easier type declarations) that's GPL that you want to use in a non-GPL library... and now there's 10 permissively licensed clones and no consensus
4:00:24
beach
But, but, the reason it is GPL is so that people who want to use it in their non-GPL library can't! Just get over it.
4:01:14
aeth
In the case of DEFSTAR, I didn't complain about it. I simply made my own version of type-declarationed DEFUN that's better in every way instead. Under the MIT license. Which is the way to do it.
4:01:46
beach
"I am complaining because this person who doesn't want me to use the code the way I would like to use it, won't let me use it the way I want to"
4:04:27
jackdaniel
right, that's my main issue - people who don't use gpl are very vocal about it; I don't see a chorus of people complaining about closed source software when LW or ACL is mentioned, but each time GPL pops up someone has to mention that they stay away from it
4:06:16
aeth
My personal stance on LW and ACL is that I'll port my stuff to them if they pay me. Because I'm sure not going to pay for their full versions (and the trial versions are very limited) just to do free work for them.
4:07:30
aeth
Given my experiences keeping things running on ECL and CCL and SBCL, it's unlikely that they work out of the box on LW and ACL without at least a few slight changes. Or possibly even using different third party dependencies if those break.
4:08:35
jackdaniel
I think that the point missed you, replace my remark about LW and ACL with "help me with OSX and/or Windows"
4:08:50
aeth
oh, porting to Windows is just an unfortunate side effect of that being where the users are
4:40:17
edwlan[m]
My experience with LW is that most stuff on quicklisp that I care about just works
5:19:59
green_
The LLGPL is weird. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think is solves any problems, and it seems to ignore a big one -- Lisp macros. The GNU C++ libraries have a similar problem with C++ templates, which get embedded in the user's code, and make it impossible to satisfy the relinking requirements. They solve this by granting a special exception that says template instantiation doesn't impact licensing
5:19:59
green_
of your code. If I was aiming for an LGPL-like Lisp license I would have done the same thing. GPL + Lisp Exception that allows linking and macro expansion.
5:27:02
jackdaniel
green_: here is my take on LGPL-2.1+ (from the ECL perspective) https://ecl.common-lisp.dev/posts/ECL-license.html; that should be supplemented with https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html and the observation, that macros produce code, and the compilation artifact is not a subject of the compiler license