[debian-legal, I was doing audit of ITPs made this year for weird
licenses, or failure to note what license was being used altogether. I
asked Mr. Rosenberg about #161007.]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:31:50PM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
(It's "Branden", BTW.)
> It's a typo -- it should be LLGPL (Lessor Lisp General Public
> License). It's a combination of a preamble and the LPGL. The preamble
> clarifies the LGPL in terms of lisp code.
Ah.
> For my own upstream packages, I've moved away from the LLGPL as being
> too wordy and to the more simple MIT/X style licenses.
Okay; there is definitely a virtue in using well-established licenses.
:)
> The license is at http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html.
I'm going to raise this license on the debian-legal mailing list just to
get some second opinions on it and otherwise get the -legal list
familiar with it, because I don't recall having seen it mentioned there
before. (Or maybe I just missed it.)
I am not sure the FSF would agree with Franz Incorporated's
interpretation of how the LGPL would apply to a Lisp module, but on the
other hand the document at the URL does seem to cover that possibility
by claiming to supersede the LGPL in any case where the meanings
conflict.
The LLGPL doesn't look like a problem from a DFSG standpoint to me. Its
real effect appears to be a liberalization of the copyleft in the LGPL
("Since Lisp only offers one choice, which is to link the Library into
an executable at build time, we declare that, for the purpose applying
the LGPL to the Library, an executable that results from linking a "work
that uses the Library" with the Library is considered a "work that uses
the Library" and is therefore NOT covered by the LGPL.")
debian-legal, what do you guys think?
--
G. Branden Robinson | Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from
branden@debian.org | bad judgement.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks
Attachment:
pgpwdfinH93JQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature