CL-HTTP and AllegroServe license agreement
Alberto Lavelli
I seem to remember that some time ago on c.l.l there were some
discussions about the differences in license agreement for personal,
educational and commercial use between CL-HTTP and AllegroServe, the
former being more restricted. I browsed Deja.com without being able
to solve all my doubts and so I'm asking the newsgroup for advice.
As far as I understand, CL-HTTP license agreement allows you to use it
in personal, educational and commercial applications, provided that
you comply with the points (a)-(h) listed in the license (i.e., mainly
you need to clearly state that you are using John C. Mallery's work,
to submit extensions and improvements to the developers and to tell
the CL-HTTP user community what kind of application you have
developed).
AllegroServe adopts the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and so
you can use it in personal, educational and commercial applications,
if your application is simply "work that uses the AllegroServe
Library". Moreover, "in connection with each distribution of this
executable, you must also deliver, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the LGPL, the source code of AllegroServe Library (or
your derivative thereof) that is incorporated into this executable".
In both cases, it seems to me that you don't need to pay any fee and
you don't need to ask any kind of permission.
Am I right?
Do you think that there is anything else relevant that I'm missing?
Thanks in advance
best
alberto
Kent M Pitman
>
> * Alberto Lavelli
> | the Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
>
> Cute, but the L in LGPL actually stands for Library.
That's not what the license says.
"GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2.1, February 1999
"Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. [...]
"Preamble
"The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change
free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
"This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some
specially designated software packages--typically libraries--of the
Free Software Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You
can use it too, but we suggest you first think carefully about whether
this license or the ordinary General Public License is the better"
T. Kurt Bond
>
> * Alberto Lavelli
> | the Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
>
> Cute, but the L in LGPL actually stands for Library.
>
Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> writes:
> That's not what the license says.
>
> "GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 2.1, February 1999
Confusingly, the GNU Lesser General Public License
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
is the successor/renaming of the GNU Library General Public License
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lgpl.html
The Lesser General Public License is probably best regarded as simply
a newer version of the Library General Public License; the only
significant difference in the text of the license itself seems to be
the addition of a clause regarding shared (dynamic) link libraries.
--
T. Kurt Bond, t...@tkb.mpl.com
Erik Naggum
| The Lesser General Public License is probably best regarded as
| simply a newer version of the Library General Public License; the
| only significant difference in the text of the license itself seems
| to be the addition of a clause regarding shared (dynamic) link
| libraries.
Thanks for the update. I'll have to get used to "Lesser", which I
think is a bad move when it's official (but cute when unofficial):
good for the politics of free software, bad for free software.
#:Erik
--
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
Christopher Browne
>* T. Kurt Bond
>| The Lesser General Public License is probably best regarded as
>| simply a newer version of the Library General Public License; the
>| only significant difference in the text of the license itself seems
>| to be the addition of a clause regarding shared (dynamic) link
>| libraries.
>
> Thanks for the update. I'll have to get used to "Lesser", which I
> think is a bad move when it's official (but cute when unofficial):
> good for the politics of free software, bad for free software.
The point of "Lesser" was that RMS felt that too many people were
gleefully choosing to use it for software that he'd rather that they
used the GPL for.
If you use the LGPL for a library, it has less "infectious" effect on the
licensing of other code that might use taht library than does the GPL.
You can write distinctly "non-free" software that uses LGPLed libraries.
Unsurprisingly, RMS would rather that the GPL was used, so that
people wouldn't write as much "non-free" software, and thus chose
the term "Lesser" to deprecate the use of the LGPL.
Those that despise RMS as some sort of "licensing tyrant" can feel free
to gleefully hold to this as a clear example of all that they deem bad
about him...
--
cbbr...@acm.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
(eq? 'truth 'beauty) ; to avoid unassigned-var error, since compiled code
; will pick up previous value to var set!-ed,
; the unassigned object.
-- from BBN-CL's cl-parser.scm
Erik Naggum
| Thanks for the update. I'll have to get used to "Lesser", which I
| think is a bad move when it's official (but cute when unofficial):
| good for the politics of free software, bad for free software.
* Christopher Browne
| The point of "Lesser" was that RMS felt that too many people were
| gleefully choosing to use it for software that he'd rather that they
| used the GPL for.
|
| If you use the LGPL for a library, it has less "infectious" effect on the
| licensing of other code that might use taht library than does the GPL.
| You can write distinctly "non-free" software that uses LGPLed libraries.
|
| Unsurprisingly, RMS would rather that the GPL was used, so that
| people wouldn't write as much "non-free" software, and thus chose
| the term "Lesser" to deprecate the use of the LGPL.
Thank you for explaning what "good for the politics of free
software, bad for free software" means. I'm sure my one-liner was
lost on approximately everyone.
| Those that despise RMS as some sort of "licensing tyrant" can feel free
| to gleefully hold to this as a clear example of all that they deem bad
| about him...
Good advice. Those who are pathologically prejudicial may feel free
to reduce their caffeine intake, though.