From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The Guile license and the use of LGPL libs (like GMP). Date: 28 May 2002 21:54:34 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87d6vgt5dx.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <87vg9oqf5b.fsf_-_@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <877klouny2.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <3CF3D274.978637CD@pacbell.net> <87sn4ct6tj.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <3CF3DCDD.D0CB1662@pacbell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1022615805 20454 127.0.0.1 (28 May 2002 19:56:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Cn5J-0005Jn-00 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 21:56:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17Cn5d-0005IG-00; Tue, 28 May 2002 15:57:05 -0400 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip1.dokom.de ([195.138.42.1] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17Cn3E-00051a-00 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 15:54:36 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 1148 invoked by uid 1000); 28 May 2002 19:54:34 -0000 Original-To: Bruce Korb In-Reply-To: <3CF3DCDD.D0CB1662@pacbell.net> Original-Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:671 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:671 Bruce Korb writes: > > Yep, this occured to me... but which one should be plain "libguile"? > > The one without new restrictions. Yes that seems to be the best choice. (Although I was hoping that we could find an argument that let's us use the nicer "libguile" for the 'best' library.) We would also need to add an option to guile-config, no? Anyway, I'm sure we can find a good solution that doesn't turn libguile into a trap for people that want the exception. > > The one with GMP or the one without? Also, we already have API > > variants: with or without threads, with or without heavy-weight > > debugging support. Maybe we should give distinct names to them also? > > If there are usage constraints, yes. Otherwise, it's a config > issue. "Does the library support function X?" is a fundamentally > different question than, "Am I allowed to link with the library at all?" Yes, agreed. Good point. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel