Announcement: wxCL 1.0.0
---------------------------
<http://www.wxcl-project.org>
We are pleased to announce the first release (1.0.0 Alpha) of wxCL, a
new open source GUI library for Common Lisp. The goal of the project
is to provide an industrial strength portable GUI library for
application developers, which runs across all lisp implementation and
operating system platforms.
wxCL builds upon wxWidgets, a comprehensive C++ library that provides
uniform application interface to all major GUI platforms; including
GTK, Windows, X11, and MacOS X. wxWidgets is a mature library which
was first released in 1992, and since improved upon by a committed
developer community, it is ranked among the top 25 most active
projects on sourceforge. wxWidgets makes many features available to
Common Lisp environments which have been missing in traditional
GUI toolkits for this programming language.
The current release of wxCL already supports about 75 % of the
wxWidgets (release 2.4.2) functionality: almost 1,500 member functions
of 125 classes with 1,200 constant definitions. It runs on CLISP, an
open-source, ANSI-compliant implementation of Common Lisp and is
tested on Windows XP but it should work on Linux and Mac OS X as well
(not tested due to lack of resources).
Most of the Foreign Function Interface were automatically generated
using the clisp module of SWIG from the C bindings written by wxEiffel
and wxHaskell project groups. Due to the size of the library, not all
of the bindings have been validated, but we expect most of them to
work without much tweaking.
We look forward to your feedback on the first release of wxCL and hope
it serves your needs.
All the best,
wxCL - Project Team.
Hello Marco,
Though the goal of the project is to make it portable across all lisp
systems, but right now it only works on clisp.
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> Does is work with CMUCL/SBCL?
Quote from the SBCL manual:
"Calling Lisp functions from C is sometimes possible, but is extremely hackish
and poorly supported as of SBCL 0.7.5."
This library relies heavily on calling lisp from C, I don't know how true is
the above comment for the current SBCL version.
Also, I am trying to watch the HelloC/CFFI projects, because they can help in
making it easier to support all the lisp implementations.
Maybe GCL next, but:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.gcl.devel/5777
>Or any of the commercial systems?
Commercial systems already provide GUI libraries, we would like to support them
but right now our focus is more on free lisp implementations, but we welcome any
volunteers who want to help us on commercial systems.
Regards.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
"War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
- Orwell, 1984, 1948
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Announcement: wxCL 1.0.0
> ---------------------------
>
> <http://www.wxcl-project.org>
>
> We are pleased to announce the first release (1.0.0 Alpha) of wxCL, a
> new open source GUI library for Common Lisp. The goal of the project
> is to provide an industrial strength portable GUI library for
> application developers, which runs across all lisp implementation and
> operating system platforms.
>
> wxCL builds upon wxWidgets, a comprehensive C++ library that provides
> uniform application interface to all major GUI platforms; including
> GTK, Windows, X11, and MacOS X. wxWidgets is a mature library which
> was first released in 1992, and since improved upon by a committed
> developer community, it is ranked among the top 25 most active
> projects on sourceforge. wxWidgets makes many features available to
> Common Lisp environments which have been missing in traditional
> GUI toolkits for this programming language.
>
> The current release of wxCL already supports about 75 % of the
> wxWidgets (release 2.4.2) functionality: almost 1,500 member functions
> of 125 classes with 1,200 constant definitions. It runs on CLISP, an
> open-source, ANSI-compliant implementation of Common Lisp and is
> tested on Windows XP but it should work on Linux and Mac OS X as well
> (not tested due to lack of resources).
>
> Most of the Foreign Function Interface were automatically generated
> using the clisp module of SWIG from the C bindings written by wxEiffel
> and wxHaskell project groups. Due to the size of the library, not all
> of the bindings have been validated, but we expect most of them to
> work without much tweaking.
>
> We look forward to your feedback on the first release of wxCL and hope
> it serves your needs.
>
>
> All the best,
> wxCL - Project Team.
ARGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
I don't know if I should feel good or not.
I feel good because, finally wxCL is back, with all the goods.
I feel partly sad, because it means I have been wasting my effort for
the last two months :'(
Because your project has been low on updates for so long, wxCL-0.0.rar
is always there., I thought it was dead a year ago (Yes I have checked
on your project regularly but it seemed dead to me).
So for the last two months I have been working as a hobby on creating
wxWidgets binding for CLISP (I named it wxLispy, and it's based on wx-c
from wx.NET project).
It only got wxFrame up and running for GUI part.
I haven't looked at your new code yet, But This is somewhat the reason
I started building my own GUI binding instead of using others Lisp's
GUI lib.
* Unicode Support: English is not my native language, so my wx has
Unicode support in places. my Wx-c is also compiled with Unicode
support.
* Running on REPL.
I can create an instance of wxApp and run the application. Then After
exiting that wxApps, create another instance of wxApp and run it. This
is good for CL's interactive development style.
If you already support these two things, excellent, If not then, I can
provided you some help, It's very small amount of code.
I would rather use the library the developer of which is not myself :-)
Cheers,
"joesb" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Because your project has been low on updates for so long, wxCL-0.0.rar
> is always there., I thought it was dead a year ago (Yes I have checked
> on your project regularly but it seemed dead to me).
The new avatar of this project is only a month old, it doesn't shares any code
with the old wxCL-0.0.rar (which maybe 2-3 years old), and thats why the new
series wxCL-1.0.0.
> * Unicode Support: English is not my native language, so my wx has
> Unicode support in places. my Wx-c is also compiled with Unicode
> support.
I don't know if wxCL has Unicode supports, but you can always join us, and
help us.
>
> * Running on REPL.
> I can create an instance of wxApp and run the application. Then After
> exiting that wxApps, create another instance of wxApp and run it. This
> is good for CL's interactive development style.
>
This is broken in the release version, but is now fixed in the cvs tree.
> If you already support these two things, excellent, If not then, I can
> provided you some help, It's very small amount of code.
>
Check out the screen shots at the website:
http://www.wxcl-project.org/en--screenshots--shot1.html
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
"War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
- Orwell, 1984, 1948
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <3mdqeuF168iujU2@uni-berlin.de>
Hi,
Nice :-)
But you publish it under GPL, not (L)LGPL ? Is this correct ?
Regards
AHz
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Announcement: wxCL 1.0.0
> ---------------------------
>
> <http://www.wxcl-project.org>
>
<snip>
In article <···············@uni-berlin.de>, Andreas Hinze wrote:
> Nice :-)
Indeed. Btw, it seems that the name of the wxc-msw***.dll was to long for
Win98, so it had to be renamed for things to work on that platform.
> But you publish it under GPL, not (L)LGPL ? Is this correct ?
So it seems from their webpage. Does anyone know what restrictions this will
put on developers who wish to use the library within a program provided under
a different licence? As far as I know clisp is GPL'ed too, which implies
restrictions on the use of memory, images at least.
--
�yvin
Oyvin Halfdan Thuv <·····@nospam.oyvins.net> writes:
> In article <···············@uni-berlin.de>, Andreas Hinze wrote:
>
>> Nice :-)
>
> Indeed.
Thanks.
>Btw, it seems that the name of the wxc-msw***.dll was to long for
> Win98, so it had to be renamed for things to work on that platform.
>
Thanks for reporting this.
It is now fixed. (http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=1263486)
Please report any more problems in the wxCL-devel mailing list, as it will make
it easier for us to track them and make sure that they are resolved.
http://www.wxcl-project.org/en--contact--main2.html
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
"War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
- Orwell, 1984, 1948
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <3mjfjjF17c3oqU1@uni-berlin.de>
Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
> In article <···············@uni-berlin.de>, Andreas Hinze wrote:
>
>>But you publish it under GPL, not (L)LGPL ? Is this correct ?
>
>
> So it seems from their webpage. Does anyone know what restrictions this will
> put on developers who wish to use the library within a program provided under
> a different licence? As far as I know clisp is GPL'ed too, which implies
> restrictions on the use of memory, images at least.
>
Hi,
AFAIK you have to put your programs under GPL, too. And this means you
have to provide the source code of your program.
I assume this is not a problem for clisp, since AFAIK you doesn't need
to provide the source of your compiled program (same as with gcc).
But for my intended use of wxCL this is a knockout point. I was thinking
about translating some of our house internal TCL/Perl tools into LISP
+ i.e. wxCL (mostly for showing that CL is the better way to go). For
this, of course, the tools shouldn't be more expensive than TCL ;-)
And we will definitly not publish the sources because there is a lot
of technology & NDA knowledge included.
So it looks that i will use ltk which is also a nice toolkit.
Kind regards
AHz
Andreas Hinze wrote:
> Hi,
> AFAIK you have to put your programs under GPL, too. And this means you
> have to provide the source code of your program.
>
>I was thinking
> about translating some of our house internal TCL/Perl tools into LISP
> + i.e. wxCL (mostly for showing that CL is the better way to go).
>
> And we will definitly not publish the sources because there is a lot
> of technology & NDA knowledge included.
The GPL requires that you provide or offer the source if you distribute
the software; there are no such requirements for internal use.
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <3mjpbcF17fop8U2@uni-berlin.de>
Zak Wilson wrote:
> Andreas Hinze wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>AFAIK you have to put your programs under GPL, too. And this means you
>>have to provide the source code of your program.
>>
>
> The GPL requires that you provide or offer the source if you distribute
> the software; there are no such requirements for internal use.
>
Ah, that makes things easier :-)
Thanks for the hint.
Kind regards
AHz
Andreas Hinze <···@snafu.de> wrote:
>I assume this is not a problem for clisp, since AFAIK you doesn't need
>to provide the source of your compiled program (same as with gcc).
That is not completely true; the clisp copyright explicitly states
that the GPL does not apply to programs running in clisp *ONLY IF*
they don't use any of clisp's extensions (i.e., reference only
standard Common Lisp symbols) and use only 3rd party packages that
are under a GPL-compatible license and that run under other Lisp
systems aswell. This of course disables the use of clisp for anything
except trivial programs (which restrict themselves to the ANSI
subset of Clisp or said 3rd-party packages.) Plus foreign code (e.g.
in C/C++) must also be GPL(!) (even LGPL is not allowed!) when
linked against clisp. Therefore I am very sceptical if you can
link wxWindows against Clisp. From my reading of the copyright,
this is not allowed.
mkb.
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <u7jejxkjc.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Matthias Buelow <···@vaphohf.qr> [2005-08-18 13:34:18 +0000]:
>
> This of course disables the use of clisp for anything except trivial
> programs (which restrict themselves to the ANSI subset of Clisp or
> said 3rd-party packages.)
I have used plenty of very complex proprietary software with CLISP.
They do not use GUI, FFI &c: AI does not require that.
> Plus foreign code (e.g. in C/C++) must also be GPL(!) (even LGPL is
> not allowed!) when linked against clisp. Therefore I am very sceptical
> if you can link wxWindows against Clisp. From my reading of the
> copyright, this is not allowed.
WRONG. See GPL FAQ.
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible>.
You can distribute wxCL under any license you want, including a
closed-source proprietary license (like MS EULA), GPL and LDPL.
_BUT_, when wxCL is _distributed_ together with CLISP,
the aggregate must be distributed under GNU GPL.
(i.e., if wxCL comes with CLISP, you must provide the source to wxCL).
Now, the software that will be running under CLISP+wxCL will not be
required to be covered by the GNU GPL, at least not because of CLISP.
(see file COPYRIGHT in CLISP distribution).
IANAL, I am do _know_ what the CLISP COPYRIGHT _wants_ to say.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://pmw.org.il/> <http://www.palestinefacts.org/>
<http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.savegushkatif.org> <http://truepeace.org>
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
>> * Matthias Buelow <···@vaphohf.qr> [2005-08-18 13:34:18 +0000]:
>
> WRONG. See GPL FAQ.
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible>.
>
> You can distribute wxCL under any license you want, including a
> closed-source proprietary license (like MS EULA), GPL and LDPL.
> _BUT_, when wxCL is _distributed_ together with CLISP,
> the aggregate must be distributed under GNU GPL.
> (i.e., if wxCL comes with CLISP, you must provide the source to wxCL).
Oh, I didn't knew that. wxCL was originally meant to be distributed under Open
BSD. I changed the license to GPL, because I thought if we don't do that we
will be violating CLISP's license (Note, right now wxCL only supports CLISP).
Discussion on clisp-thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.clisp.general/9647
and discussion on wxCL thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.wxcl.devel/50
Sam, if you can confirm that we can distribute wxCL under any license, then I
think I can change the license for next release as I still have the copyright
for all the work.
Thanks.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
"War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
- Orwell, 1984, 1948
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> wrote:
>You can distribute wxCL under any license you want, including a
>closed-source proprietary license (like MS EULA), GPL and LDPL.
>_BUT_, when wxCL is _distributed_ together with CLISP,
>the aggregate must be distributed under GNU GPL.
>(i.e., if wxCL comes with CLISP, you must provide the source to wxCL).
Hmm. What happens if the Windows version bundles wxWidgets with the
application (and Clisp, and the application, and wxCL in one bundle)?
Since that's a rather typical way of distributing a Windows program
(pack all "nonstandard" DLLs into the installer).
mkb.
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <3mjqsdF179an4U1@uni-berlin.de>
Hi
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Andreas Hinze <···@snafu.de> wrote:
>
>
>>I assume this is not a problem for clisp, since AFAIK you doesn't need
>>to provide the source of your compiled program (same as with gcc).
>
>
> That is not completely true; the clisp copyright explicitly states
> that the GPL does not apply to programs running in clisp *ONLY IF*
> they don't use any of clisp's extensions (i.e., reference only
> standard Common Lisp symbols) and use only 3rd party packages that
> are under a GPL-compatible license and that run under other Lisp
> systems aswell. This of course disables the use of clisp for anything
> except trivial programs (which restrict themselves to the ANSI
> subset of Clisp or said 3rd-party packages.)
From the notes in the copyright i find that you can reference all
external symbols in the public packagaes (this includes ext) and all
the symbols in external packages if they are under GPL.
Looks fair because it let you make a clear separation of your
independent work.
>Plus foreign code (e.g.
> in C/C++) must also be GPL(!) (even LGPL is not allowed!) when
> linked against clisp. Therefore I am very sceptical if you can
> link wxWindows against Clisp. From my reading of the copyright,
> this is not allowed.
That, indeed, is strange. A lot of good libraries are LGPL'ed.
However, as Zak pointed out, this is only a problem if you want to
distribute your code (i just want to use it inhouse - seems to be
different).
Regards
AHz
Andreas Hinze <···@snafu.de> writes:
[...]
> From the notes in the copyright i find that you can reference all
> external symbols in the public packagaes (this includes ext) and all
> the symbols in external packages if they are under GPL.
> Looks fair because it let you make a clear separation of your
> independent work.
The usual wording in such things is that the exceptions don't exclude
any other reasons why your code might need to be released under the
GNU GPL. In particular, if your code depends on some extension which
is covered by the GNU GPL, then *that* dependency may cause your
application to need to be released under the GPL, independent of what
clisp's copyright says.
[...]
> That, indeed, is strange. A lot of good libraries are LGPL'ed.
> However, as Zak pointed out, this is only a problem if you want to
> distribute your code (i just want to use it inhouse - seems to be
> different).
I don't think that's what the clisp COPYRIGHT file says. I think it
says that the extensions need to have a GPL compatible license (and
the other restrictions mentioned to do with which symbols they access,
and portability to other CL implementations).
Presuming that for inhouse use you need to copy the applications, I
suspect there's no technical legal difference between that and more
general distribution, in that everyone doing the copying needs to
follow the relevant licenses. However, IANAL. And practically there
are differences.
[...]
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <m3d5oaixq0.fsf@4dv.net>
Bruce Stephens <············@cenderis.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> Presuming that for inhouse use you need to copy the applications, I
> suspect there's no technical legal difference between that and more
> general distribution, in that everyone doing the copying needs to
> follow the relevant licenses. However, IANAL. And practically there
> are differences.
I believe that the difference is that a corporation is a single legal
person. Anyway the GPL is not commonly held to apply to internal code.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees. --Dolores Ibarruri
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <3mjv61F17bl9cU2@uni-berlin.de>
Bruce Stephens wrote:
>
> The usual wording in such things is that the exceptions don't exclude
> any other reasons why your code might need to be released under the
> GNU GPL. In particular, if your code depends on some extension which
> is covered by the GNU GPL, then *that* dependency may cause your
> application to need to be released under the GPL, independent of what
> clisp's copyright says.
>
Yes and this is the original intention of the GPL. If your program is
derived from GPLed code then it must be distributed under GPL, too.
This also was the reason for the LGPL. To allow to write programs
that are your own propriary programs but still using libraries that
are free.
Without LGPL no commercial vendor could make Linux versions of his
programs because all ".so" would be under GPL and they would need to
publish their source.
>>That, indeed, is strange. A lot of good libraries are LGPL'ed.
>>However, as Zak pointed out, this is only a problem if you want to
>>distribute your code (i just want to use it inhouse - seems to be
>> different).
>
>
> I don't think that's what the clisp COPYRIGHT file says. I think it
> says that the extensions need to have a GPL compatible license (and
> the other restrictions mentioned to do with which symbols they access,
> and portability to other CL implementations).
Just a quote from
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/COPYRIGHT
" Foreign non-Lisp code that is linked with CLISP or loaded into CLISP
through dynamic linking is not exempted from this copyright. I.e. such
code, when distributed for use with CLISP, must be distributed under
the GPL.
"
GPL (!)
>
> Presuming that for inhouse use you need to copy the applications, I
> suspect there's no technical legal difference between that and more
> general distribution, in that everyone doing the copying needs to
> follow the relevant licenses. However, IANAL. And practically there
> are differences.
Nope, we use NFS. So i don't copy ;-)
But serious, i tend to agree. However, i find that i meet almost all
requirements that the CLISP copyright asks (since i'm not using 3rd
party libs at the moment).
But when i need to use libraries which might be BSD or LGPL this might
become a problem.
Regards
AHz
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <uwtmjw3du.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Andreas Hinze <···@fansh.qr> [2005-08-18 19:34:57 +0200]:
>
> Just a quote from
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/COPYRIGHT
>
> " Foreign non-Lisp code that is linked with CLISP or loaded into CLISP
> through dynamic linking is not exempted from this copyright. I.e. such
> code, when distributed for use with CLISP, must be distributed under
> the GPL.
> "
>
> GPL (!)
"when distributed for use with CLISP".
E.g., CLISP comes with a Matlab module - and it loads Matlab libraries!
This does not place the Matlab libraries under GPL though, because these
libraries are not "distributed for use with CLISP".
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://ffii.org/> <http://www.iris.org.il>
If Perl is the solution, you're solving the wrong problem. - Erik Naggum
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <3mk05fF17gh0kU2@uni-berlin.de>
Hi,
Sam Steingold wrote:
>>* Andreas Hinze <···@fansh.qr> [2005-08-18 19:34:57 +0200]:
>>
>>Just a quote from
>>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/COPYRIGHT
>>
>>" Foreign non-Lisp code that is linked with CLISP or loaded into CLISP
>> through dynamic linking is not exempted from this copyright. I.e. such
>> code, when distributed for use with CLISP, must be distributed under
>> the GPL.
>>"
>>
>>GPL (!)
>
>
> "when distributed for use with CLISP".
>
> E.g., CLISP comes with a Matlab module - and it loads Matlab libraries!
> This does not place the Matlab libraries under GPL though, because these
> libraries are not "distributed for use with CLISP".
>
Ok, now i understand the idea. So all libraries that are public available
can be used (with respect to their own copyright of course).
Yes, that makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.
Kind regards
AHz
Andreas Hinze <···@snafu.de> writes:
[...]
> Just a quote from
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/COPYRIGHT
>
> " Foreign non-Lisp code that is linked with CLISP or loaded into CLISP
> through dynamic linking is not exempted from this copyright. I.e. such
> code, when distributed for use with CLISP, must be distributed under
> the GPL.
> "
>
> GPL (!)
Sure, and that's why the foreign code's license must be GNU GPL
compatible. But that just means the derived work must be under the
GNU GPL, not that you can't use (for example) public domain foreign
code. The same sort of argument applies to all GNU GPL programs, but
of course it's possible for them to be combined with code that's not
under the GNU GPL, so long as it's possible for the resulting derived
work to be under the GNU GPL.
More generally, I think it would be nice to have something like wxCL
under a more liberal license (an obvious choice would be the
wxWindows/wxWidgets license). On the other hand, maybe cells-gtk will
take over the world; I suspect wx still wins over gtk on Windows in
Windowsness, however.
[...]
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <m2ek8rw3hl.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
Andreas Hinze <···@snafu.de> writes:
> Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
>> In article <···············@uni-berlin.de>, Andreas Hinze wrote:
>>
>>> But you publish it under GPL, not (L)LGPL ? Is this correct ?
>> So it seems from their webpage. Does anyone know what restrictions
>> this will put on developers who wish to use the library within a
>> program provided under a different licence? As far as I know clisp
>> is GPL'ed too, which implies restrictions on the use of memory,
>> images at least.
>>
> Hi, AFAIK you have to put your programs under GPL, too. And this
> means you have to provide the source code of your program.
>
> I assume this is not a problem for clisp, since AFAIK you doesn't
> need to provide the source of your compiled program (same as with
> gcc).
>
> But for my intended use of wxCL this is a knockout point. I was
> thinking about translating some of our house internal TCL/Perl tools
> into LISP + i.e. wxCL (mostly for showing that CL is the better way
> to go). For this, of course, the tools shouldn't be more expensive
> than TCL ;-) And we will definitly not publish the sources because
> there is a lot of technology & NDA knowledge included.
IANAL, but if these are really in-house tools the GPL shouldn't be
problem--the GPL's provisions only kick in when you "distribute" the
software. If you build your tools on wxCL and use them only in-house
the GPL places no obligation on you. However if you want to distribute
those tools (i.e. sell or give away) to a 3rd party you'll be required
to distribute them *to that 3rd party* under the GPL with no
additional restrictions. However what you *can't* do is restrict the
folks you distribute your software to from then giving or selling it
to whomever they want. So practically speaking the GPL probably only
works for you if you really plan to keep the tools purely
in-house. But in that case, it works fine.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
Peter Seibel <·····@gigamonkeys.com> writes:
[...]
> IANAL, but if these are really in-house tools the GPL shouldn't be
> problem--the GPL's provisions only kick in when you "distribute" the
> software.
IANAL, either, but as far as I understand it the relevant magic word
is "copy", not "distribute". Copyright is about copying, which
needn't necessarily involve something someone would normally describe
as "distribution". And the GNU GPL allows copying under particular
conditions.
So (in theory) I suspect if you construct an application which somehow
needs to fall under the GNU GPL, and then give it to colleagues to
use, then you have to follow the GNU GPL. On the other hand, in
reality this probably isn't a big deal, depending on what the
application is.
[...]
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <m2oe7vuje0.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
Bruce Stephens <············@cenderis.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Peter Seibel <·····@gigamonkeys.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> IANAL, but if these are really in-house tools the GPL shouldn't be
>> problem--the GPL's provisions only kick in when you "distribute" the
>> software.
>
> IANAL, either, but as far as I understand it the relevant magic word
> is "copy", not "distribute". Copyright is about copying, which
> needn't necessarily involve something someone would normally describe
> as "distribution". And the GNU GPL allows copying under particular
> conditions.
>
> So (in theory) I suspect if you construct an application which somehow
> needs to fall under the GNU GPL, and then give it to colleagues to
> use, then you have to follow the GNU GPL.
Yes. But if your colleagues are all at the same company and this is
part of your work, then you are, for purposes of the legal argument,
all just tiny cogs in the corporate entity that owns the copyright on
the code and thus decides how it will be licensed and to whom. However
if your company allows you to give a copy to a colleague who does
*not* work for the company, then there's no way for you or your
company to restrict that person (or the company they work for) from
exercising the rights given them by the GPL to further distributing
the code to whomever they see fit. You could even distribute the code
that you didn't want widely disseminated to another entity if you
believed that that entity would not in turn choose to further
distribute it--perhaps because it's also in their interest to keep it
to themselves. However you can't legally restrict them--no "here's
some GPL'd code *and* a side-agreement wherin you promise not to
distribute it." Dunno what RMS would say about non-legal restrictions
such as, "here's some GPL'd code and BTW, if you give it to anybody
we'll never do business with you again." Of course that's all getting
a bit far astray from the spirit of the GPL.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
From: Andreas Hinze
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <3mk0tbF173n8eU1@uni-berlin.de>
Hi,
Peter Seibel wrote:
> Andreas Hinze <···@snafu.de> writes:
>
> IANAL, but if these are really in-house tools the GPL shouldn't be
> problem--the GPL's provisions only kick in when you "distribute" the
> software. If you build your tools on wxCL and use them only in-house
> the GPL places no obligation on you. However if you want to distribute
> those tools (i.e. sell or give away) to a 3rd party you'll be required
> to distribute them *to that 3rd party* under the GPL with no
> additional restrictions. However what you *can't* do is restrict the
> folks you distribute your software to from then giving or selling it
> to whomever they want. So practically speaking the GPL probably only
> works for you if you really plan to keep the tools purely
> in-house. But in that case, it works fine.
>
As i wrote before, the tools are really inhouse. The major idea was to
convince some of my colleagues that we should use Lisp instead of the
usual TCL/Perl/whatever-is-the-new-trend hacks. So i want to rewrite
the tools and add some GUI that was nicer than what they can do.
Not the way to get rich but the only way to let me hack Lisp at work ;-)
Kind regards
AHz
Peter Seibel <·····@gigamonkeys.com> writes:
> IANAL, but if these are really in-house tools the GPL shouldn't be
> problem--the GPL's provisions only kick in when you "distribute" the
> software. If you build your tools on wxCL and use them only in-house
> the GPL places no obligation on you.
IANAL either, but there's half a loophole here:
- create a corporation.
- have this corporation take a GPL software and improve on it.
- sell the corporation, along with all its assets including its
improvements on that GPL software.
One could claim it's not exactly distribution because there's still
"one copy" of the derived work.
Can companies fork? Sharing rights on immaterial assets? IASNAL, but
I think so. Therefore instead of distributing my derived work of GPL
software, I'll just fork my company with copyright shared between the
two, and I'll sell one of them.
Thinking of it, is copyright assignment considered a kind of
distribution or not? IKBNAL, but I think not.
So you could still develop derived works of GPL software, and "sell"
it, assigning its copyright to its new owner. Does this prevent you
to keep a copy of it? After all, the new owner is not distributing it
to you, you already have it! That'd make two undistributed copies of a
derived work. Since you already have the software, its value for you
is much less than what it was before the copyright assignment, so if
the owner wants to assign to copyright back to you, he'll get much
less money for it. Let's say he does. Now you can assign the
copyright to someone else.
> However if you want to distribute
> those tools (i.e. sell or give away) to a 3rd party you'll be required
> to distribute them *to that 3rd party* under the GPL with no
> additional restrictions. However what you *can't* do is restrict the
> folks you distribute your software to from then giving or selling it
> to whomever they want. So practically speaking the GPL probably only
> works for you if you really plan to keep the tools purely
> in-house. But in that case, it works fine.
I'm not sure the distribution restrictions of GPL really can be
enforced. Without being a lawyer, I just found three possible
loopholes. Bad news, I rely on GPL for my software, and any MBA
could make money with my work...
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ _ Software patents are endangering
() ASCII ribbon against html email (o_ the computer industry all around
/\ 1962:DO20I=1.100 //\ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
2001:my($f)=`fortune`; V_/ http://petition.eurolinux.org/
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: ANN: wxCL 1.0.0 Alpha, a portable GUI Library
Date:
Message-ID: <m3hddmiy4j.fsf@4dv.net>
Andreas Hinze <···@snafu.de> writes:
>
> But for my intended use of wxCL this is a knockout point. I was thinking
> about translating some of our house internal TCL/Perl tools into LISP
> + i.e. wxCL (mostly for showing that CL is the better way to go). For
> this, of course, the tools shouldn't be more expensive than TCL ;-)
> And we will definitly not publish the sources because there is a lot
> of technology & NDA knowledge included.
If they're internal-use-only tools, then it doesn't matter. It only
matters if you distribute them to others, in which case you must give
them the same rights which you received.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
More likely, the ticket database is an incoherent work of speculative
fiction that doesn't contain records for many changes.
--clover_kicker