Yes, especially user of the DLL-flavour would benefit of a LGPL-license for the DLL.Or is this the issue?
Now you have to make a seperate install and load the DLL from there.
That workaround might work, but is again just a kludge.Lutz wrote:The way newLISP is licensed, it does not permit linking or packaging closed source with newLISP together.
You would have to distribute your closed source in a separate package. Users would have to install a newLISP distribution and then your closed source package.
All except for Perl appear to be liberal licenses that don't require publishing your source:cormullion wrote:My interest in this topic is purely academic - but I'm curious - what do the other scripting languages do for licensing - Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, etc? If different from newLISP, what does newLISP's licence deliver that the others miss out on?
I'm not sure I understand what he's referring to by "Perl source" there. Is he referring to the source of the Perl interpreter or to the Perl scripts you wrote? If it's referring to the source of the interpreter, then it seems like you should be able to commercially use and embed the newLISP interpreter with your code and not need to provide the source for your scripts.For those of you that choose to use the GNU General Public License, my interpretation of the GNU General Public License is that no Perl script falls under the terms of the GPL unless you explicitly put said script under the terms of the GPL yourself.
Furthermore, any object code linked with perl does not automatically fall under the terms of the GPL, provided such object code only adds definitions of subroutines and variables, and does not otherwise impair the resulting interpreter from executing any standard Perl script. I consider linking in C subroutines in this manner to be the moral equivalent of defining subroutines in the Perl language itself. You may sell such an object file as proprietary provided that you provide or offer to provide the Perl source, as specified by the GNU General Public License. (This is merely an alternate way of specifying input to the program.) You may also sell a binary produced by the dumping of a running Perl script that belongs to you, provided that you provide or offer to provide the Perl source as specified by the GPL. (The fact that a Perl interpreter and your code are in the same binary file is, in this case, a form of mere aggregation.)
This is my interpretation of the GPL. If you still have concerns or difficulties understanding my intent, feel free to contact me. Of course, the Artistic License spells all this out for your protection, so you may prefer to use that.
Lutz wrote:People should just goto http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and
read up on related questions.
Regarding linking the newLISP script and newLISP executable or
shipping it together, it is pretty much like HPW stated it in the
thread: you have to ship and install your closed source script and
newLISP separately, because newLISP is not LGPL.
I am not participating in GPL related threads, because they tend to be
endless. Most questions can be cleared up reading the GPL FAQs.
Cheers
Lutz
Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?
Yes.