If I have a commercial enterprise or a professional edition of Lisp,
I'm allowed to distribute applications without paying Lisp vendor
anything, right? I suppose I can even sell my application under my own
license conditions, correct? Can my application be a three-line Lisp
REPL? ... You get the point. Either I should be able to download a
$0.90 unlimited version Lispworks somewhere, or the licensing
conditions are not what they seem, or these systems must cripple Lisp
functionality somehow (like disabling run-time 'eval'). Which of the
three is it?
"Michael Park" <···········@whoever.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> If I have a commercial enterprise or a professional edition of Lisp,
> I'm allowed to distribute applications without paying Lisp vendor
> anything, right? I suppose I can even sell my application under my own
> license conditions, correct? Can my application be a three-line Lisp
> REPL? ... You get the point. Either I should be able to download a
> $0.90 unlimited version Lispworks somewhere, or the licensing
> conditions are not what they seem, or these systems must cripple Lisp
> functionality somehow (like disabling run-time 'eval'). Which of the
> three is it?
Xanalys relies on your good-will, for the most part. Just like you
would not copy LW and give away your license key. File compilation
is removed from a delivered image (but not a save-image).
For LWW in the license.txt
2. Distribution of Runtimes. You may distribute Runtimes solely to
end-users as part of an application developed using the Software
("Application"), except that you may not distribute any part of the
Software as a general purpose Lisp development tool. Any Runtimes
distributed as part of the Application will continue to be subject to
the terms and conditions of this Agreement. You agree to license the
Application to your customers under a written license agreement
containing terms and conditions with regard to the Software and
Runtimes that are at least as restrictive as those contained herein.
Wade
On Wed, 28 May 2003 00:56:01 GMT, "Wade Humeniuk"
<····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
>You may distribute Runtimes solely to
>end-users as part of an application developed using the Software
>("Application"), except that you may not distribute any part of the
>Software as a general purpose Lisp development tool.
Seem to say to me that you cannot write for example a refactoring
browser and sell that.
--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
Think twice, code once.
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 00:56:01 GMT, "Wade Humeniuk"
> <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
>
> >You may distribute Runtimes solely to
> >end-users as part of an application developed using the Software
> >("Application"), except that you may not distribute any part of the
> >Software as a general purpose Lisp development tool.
> Seem to say to me that you cannot write for example a refactoring
> browser and sell that.
Why not? You make your "refactoring browser" a module that can be
loaded into running LispWorks IDE, and sell it. Isn't that simple?
If your "refactoring browser" is meant to be a tool with which
*anyone* can refactor software developed with LispWorks without having
a development environment, then it *has* to be "a general purpose Lisp
development tool". Or did I miss something?
And another note: before you jump on such conclusions, consider
contacting the vendor instead of spreading not rally positive
guesswork to the whole world.
--
Janis Dzerins
If million people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing.
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote in message news:<····················@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> "Michael Park" <···········@whoever.com> wrote in message
> ·································@posting.google.com...
> > If I have a commercial enterprise or a professional edition of Lisp,
> > I'm allowed to distribute applications without paying Lisp vendor
> > anything, right? I suppose I can even sell my application under my own
> > license conditions, correct? Can my application be a three-line Lisp
> > REPL? ... You get the point. Either I should be able to download a
> > $0.90 unlimited version Lispworks somewhere, or the licensing
> > conditions are not what they seem, or these systems must cripple Lisp
> > functionality somehow (like disabling run-time 'eval'). Which of the
> > three is it?
>
> Xanalys relies on your good-will, for the most part. Just like you
> would not copy LW and give away your license key. File compilation
> is removed from a delivered image (but not a save-image).
>
> For LWW in the license.txt
>
> 2. Distribution of Runtimes. You may distribute Runtimes solely to
> end-users as part of an application developed using the Software
> ("Application"), except that you may not distribute any part of the
> Software as a general purpose Lisp development tool. Any Runtimes
> distributed as part of the Application will continue to be subject to
> the terms and conditions of this Agreement. You agree to license the
> Application to your customers under a written license agreement
> containing terms and conditions with regard to the Software and
> Runtimes that are at least as restrictive as those contained herein.
>
> Wade
So if someone wanted to write an "interesting" Lisp program (one which
includes Lisp in it, like Emacs and CAD) that was also deliverable for
Windows, Clisp would be the only choice, right?
Or I guess I could always wait until someone else gets desperate
enough and ports CMUCL/SBCL to Windows.
Michael Park wrote:
> So if someone wanted to write an "interesting" Lisp program (one which
> includes Lisp in it, like Emacs and CAD) that was also deliverable for
> Windows, Clisp would be the only choice, right?
They could negotiate a more permissive licence with Xanalys
or Franz. (Or Corman; I'm not sure what their policy is on
this.) If they wanted to make their progarm cheap or even
free, and didn't want to rely on users already having some
variety of Lisp, then they would have to use a free Lisp
available for Windows, which at the moment means CLISP or
nothing.
> Or I guess I could always wait until someone else gets desperate
> enough and ports CMUCL/SBCL to Windows.
Or they (er, I mean you, I suppose) could port CMU CL or
SBCL to Windows themselves/yourself.
Alternatively, they could complain about it on comp.lang.lisp,
which wouldn't accomplish anything but might make them feel
better.
--
Gareth McCaughan ················@pobox.com
.sig under construc
···········@whoever.com (Michael Park) writes:
> So if someone wanted to write an "interesting" Lisp program (one
> which includes Lisp in it, like Emacs and CAD) that was also
> deliverable for Windows, Clisp would be the only choice, right?
Sure, and the only "interesting" C programs that have ever been
written all include Visual Studio, or don't they?
Seriously, I don't think something "like Emacs and CAD" is necessarily
a "general purpose Lisp development tool" even if it includes Lisp as
a scripting language. But, as has been said more than once, if you
/really/ have something in mind that you want to build, ask the
vendors. I'm pretty sure Xanalys or Franz would love to brag with a
competitor to Emacs or Autocad that was developed with their compilers
and IDEs.
However, this suspiciously smells like just another thread where the
poster desperately tries to find reasons why he "can't use" Lisp
instead of just using it.
> Or I guess I could always wait until someone else gets desperate
> enough and ports CMUCL/SBCL to Windows.
Yes, that's your best bet - wait and whine. At least you'll know what
comes out of it.
Edi.
"Michael Park" <···········@whoever.com> wrote in message
> So if someone wanted to write an "interesting" Lisp program (one which
> includes Lisp in it, like Emacs and CAD) that was also deliverable for
> Windows, Clisp would be the only choice, right?
Actually, since CLISP is GPL'd rather than LGPL, some may argue that as a
detriment to put it in an "interesting program".
For most "interesting programs", the cost of the Lispworks Pro is a drop in
the bucket. Most "interesting programs" solve enough of a need, typically in
narrow vertical markets, where a VAST majority of software is written, that
tacking on "Oh, and you need to purchase LW Pro to use our product" is
simply head nod during final contract negotiations.
Much to the chagrin of folks here, Franz realizes this exact phenomena and
obviously finds a market for its product.
This happens everyday with other environments. Some are quite popular.
Perhaps you've heard of something called "Oracle".
"Yes, our back office software is $5K per user for 200 users, and you need
to purchase Oracle as well."
"Ok."
Oracle is large enough to have a more liberal development program than
Franz.
> Or I guess I could always wait until someone else gets desperate
> enough and ports CMUCL/SBCL to Windows.
I won't mention that anyone can port CMUCL to Windows (or anything else),
put it in an "interesting program", and charge what ever they want for it.
In fact, they can create a "general purpose Lisp development environment"
from CMUCL, and charge whatever they want for it, and noone outside of the
company need ever see a lick of code from it.
CMUCL has the most liberal of licenses, more so than BSD in that it doesn't
even need to be attributed.
So, be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
Hi all.
> So if someone wanted to write an "interesting" Lisp program (one which
> includes Lisp in it, like Emacs and CAD) that was also deliverable for
> Windows, Clisp would be the only choice, right?
Depending on your view of the implications of LGPL version 2 in a Common
Lisp compiler, you might also consider Gnu Common Lisp version 2.5.2:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcl/cvs/gcl_2.5.2.japi.20030321_mingw32.zip
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcl/
Cheers
Mike Thomas.
···········@whoever.com (Michael Park) writes:
> If I have a commercial enterprise or a professional edition of Lisp,
> I'm allowed to distribute applications without paying Lisp vendor
> anything, right?
Depends on the vendor. With Lispworks (Windows, Linux) and Corman the
answer is yes, with Franz the answer is most likely no, I don't know
about Digitool. Ask them if you really want to have an answer.
> I suppose I can even sell my application under my own license
> conditions, correct? Can my application be a three-line Lisp REPL?
> ... You get the point. Either I should be able to download a $0.90
> unlimited version Lispworks somewhere, or the licensing conditions
> are not what they seem, or these systems must cripple Lisp
> functionality somehow (like disabling run-time 'eval'). Which of the
> three is it?
They don't cripple, they just have a reasonable license. See
<http://www.google.com/groups?selm=9t93q4%24fh6%241%40rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>
and ask the vendors for details.
Edi Weitz <···@agharta.de> wrote:
> ···········@whoever.com (Michael Park) writes:
>
> > If I have a commercial enterprise or a professional edition of Lisp,
> > I'm allowed to distribute applications without paying Lisp vendor
> > anything, right?
>
> Depends on the vendor. With Lispworks (Windows, Linux) and Corman the
> answer is yes, with Franz the answer is most likely no, I don't know
> about Digitool. Ask them if you really want to have an answer.
Digitool charges more for redistribution licenses than for in house
licenses, and has a mid-level where you can redistribute but must excise
the compiler (which I'm pretty sure means you couldn't offer a full CL
as a scripting language, a la emacs, since MCL does inline compilation,
not interpretation). Their full redistribution license is currently $4K
total -- with that, you still can't include any of the IDE software, but
you can include the full lisp image with compiler. Disclaimer: I'm not
with digitool -- just a user who happened to be looking this up on their
website earlier today. Anyway, those are one-time charges, so there's
no royalty. Definitely doesn't look like that price would preclude any
serious development effort that wanted to offer a lispscript, but does
keep you from making any real money with something as simple as a 3-line
REPL.
Michael