>
> Okay, maybe I'm not getting it. GPL succeeds in nailing pancakes to a
> wall but I'm trying to nail Jello.
>
> Brad

> Brad,

> What are you actually trying to accomplish?

> IIRTC, you'd like to release some sort of interpreter under an open source
> license, but allow anyone to use that interpreter in any context
> (commercial or otherwise), and without placing any restrictions on the
> resulting device or code which a customer/client/other person might
> invent/run/embed into the final product? Is that correct?

>
> What are you actually trying to accomplish?
>

> On Feb 7, 11:40 am, s...@controlq.com wrote:

>>
>> What are you actually trying to accomplish?
>>

> Trying to find a copyleft license that's best for promoting code reuse
> (the building of a public code repository) without placing
> unreasonable restrictions on commercial developers, which would negate
> the incentive for them to contribute.
>
> A side effect of this discussion has been to explore the limits of GPL
> in the Forth context. The FSF's position on interpreters made my head
> hurt. First they say an interpreted program isn't covered by GPL. Then
> they say if a GPL'd interpreter dynamically or statically links
> functionality from a GPL library (printf for TYPE, for example) and
> the interpreted program contains TYPE then that program is covered by
> GPL.

> On Feb 7, 11:40 am, s...@controlq.com wrote:

>>
>> What are you actually trying to accomplish?
>>

> Trying to find a copyleft license that's best for promoting code reuse
> (the building of a public code repository) without placing
> unreasonable restrictions on commercial developers, which would negate
> the incentive for them to contribute.

>
> Suppose you buy a bread knife, and the seller tells you,
> that it's prohibited to slice with it, but screwing is OK.
> What do you think of this policy?
>

> It is this reason (licensing chief amoung others) that I wrote a
> small strlib and iolib support library for my forth which does
> not use printf or libc, or even stdio ... but only
> read(2)/write(2) level functionality on hosted systems, and
> which requires only equivalent read/write code to be written for
> non-hosted system (bit banging or uart). str_format is
> equivalent to a printf type buffer print ... with only the
> functionality I required. Even KEY can be portably implemented
> in this way ... and thus my TYPE does not call printf --
> anyone's 8-). Here are the header files to give you an idea of
> just how simple this can be ...
>
> /*
> rss Forth v 2.0
> All rights reserved

>On Feb 7, 11:40=A0am, s...@controlq.com wrote:

>>
>> What are you actually trying to accomplish?
>>

>Trying to find a copyleft license that's best for promoting code reuse
>(the building of a public code repository) without placing
>unreasonable restrictions on commercial developers, which would negate
>the incentive for them to contribute.

> You write that you want to copyleft the library. If you want developers
> of proprietary programs to be able to INCLUDE your library and
> distribute their program, you either need to provide a standard API (or
> at least one that is also implemented by a non-copylefted library), or
> you need to add an exception to the license that allows that.
> Similarly, if you want them to be able to distribute binaries containing
> your library without having to comply with copyleft requirements, you
> have to add an exception to the library that allows that. If your
> exceptions are very liberal, the effect will be very similar to using a
> non-copyleft license, so you might make things simpler by just using a
> non-copyleft license from the...

> OTOH, the FSF believes that source code running on a GPLed interpreter
> is not a derived work of the interpreter (BTW, this contradicts the
> "shared address space" argument; I don't think lawyers and judges care
> much about address spaces).