RE: LLGPL Clarification

Hi,

I have no comment on the LLGPL debate one way or the other. However, if you
are looking for a new license that has been designed/built by legal experts,
then take a look at http://www.creativecommons.org/ for some possible help.

Mike Harper

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Santoro [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:33 PM
To: Duane Rettig; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: LLGPL Clarification 


Duane Rettig <[email protected]> said:

> Are you:
> 
>  1. Protecting the LPGL from what you consider a threat to its
> interpretation?
Not really -- I have no desire to protect any particular license, but 
rather use one that is ideal.
>  2. Considering using LLPGL as an alternative form of licensing, based
> on the metaprogramming issues you are surely facing?
This is closer.
>  3. ... ?

Here we go. I would like to find a license that satisfies my desires 
completely :) I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to write a license 
myself. But I do know that other licenses have serious inadequacies; the 
BUGROFF license, as well as Public Domain, seem to be the best way to 
release source code.

My primary concern in relation with the LLGPL is that after discovering a 
license being promoted by one of the premier Lisp vendors, I find I would 
not want to license my own code under it. Ideally, I would like Franz (or 
anyone/group with enough legal expertise to write a license) to take my 
ideas into consideration in preparing a revision of the LLGPL.

Lisp shares a lot of traits with other languages, and I also feel that were 
a new, better license to be created, it could be created in a way that 
would allow it to work for more languages. And if it was extremely well 
developed, perhaps many of these squabbles would go away. I know of several 
other groups (such as the Squeak group) which have similar licensing issues 
because the language is too complicated for the license.

Thank you,
  Marc Santoro
--