From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Julian Graham Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: guile-lib licensing (input requested) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:49:35 -0500 Message-ID: <2bc5f8210901261649ve1668d7gd59e1479104f3fd2@mail.gmail.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233017425 31221 80.91.229.12 (27 Jan 2009 00:50:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 27 01:51:37 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LRcAq-0006N0-J1 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:51:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55138 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRc9Y-0004OV-8I for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:50:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRc95-00049F-JB for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:49:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRc93-000486-7I for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:49:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43238 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRc93-00047x-0V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:49:37 -0500 Original-Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.158]:10094) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LRc92-0007Vp-Ko for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:49:36 -0500 Original-Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so2522242ywk.66 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:49:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Oyo/cs5/P9l95dJ9rkAJKaDtdP68N9ajMS2ZkrfiGFM=; b=v7q9OTpeuzvDPrx5Bmw+Uknieln8gSiOqy9VUU5xGiiRmZCiEcJ8COOM5cbobueubD RhVvYQFlAcAf9eHQujw0gy2/BJbMVTUkgM5eY0gMYadc3S7AfUuoyjTp4sAwdLQoH4Zb kc1T2WQv13AdXtC6aKFWwyhSOrxiOxkJ5YUwM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ejNtHmjUyuWUKnBlcTYSDZkBAZWm3lOczipx+UiGxXiUQqj0linZ22vByzZprOLxRv SQjKVwVQB2AwTFpEKrBmAV3C7coePXEsWOmo1Oy2S60ihFSjXtxtlzKEXIqMOW5FfD8t bcs8ZljLW8qXhQKheG7+Qs5Uob62qJUSMBY0g= Original-Received: by 10.151.156.7 with SMTP id i7mr216256ybo.160.1233017375238; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:49:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8081 Archived-At: Hurray! You're my hero, Andy! Thanks so much for doing this. As to the license, I'm fine with Ludovic's suggestion. (Also, a quick survey reveals that most Schemes don't even specify the distribution terms of SSAX, so if you did that, you'd be way ahead.) Regards, Julian On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Andy Wingo wrote: > Hey hackers, > > In an attack of CADT[0], I have decided to move Guile-lib to > savannah.nongnu.org, so that Guile contributors can more easily > contribute to Guile-lib. I've also migrated to Git. > > As part of the savannah submission process, Sebastian Gerhardt > rightfully pointed out some schitzophrenia regarding licensing. Many of > our sources come from the public domain, but some of our code is GPL. > > We should probably have some kind of policy regarding licenses. Here are > some options that I can think of: > > 1) Guile-lib itself has no one license. Individual modules have > clearly-stated licenses. > > Advantage: reflects the current situation. > > Disadvantage: difficult for the user to know the licenses of the > software they are using. License of the tarball as a whole is > ambiguous. > > 2) Guile-lib has one license, the GPLv3+. > > Advantage: Clarity, and supportive of software freedom. > > Disadvantage: License is different from that of Guile (LGPLv2+, > perhaps becoming v3+). Much more restrictive than some > public-domain sources that we base our work on (e.g. ssax). > > 3) One license, the LGPLv3+. > > Advantage: Clarity, harmony with Guile's license. > > Disadvantage: Getting some GPL code relicensed to LGPL, although > there's not that many contributors for GPL code. A weaker support > for software freedom. > > What do people think? > > Btw: until the guile-lib submission goes through, you can get guile-lib > from git as follows: > > git clone http://wingolog.org/git/guile-lib.git