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 21:23:36 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87sn4ct6tj.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <87vg9oqf5b.fsf_-_@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <877klouny2.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <3CF3D274.978637CD@pacbell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1022613818 15924 127.0.0.1 (28 May 2002 19:23:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Rob Browning , guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org, Greg Troxel Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17CmZF-00048j-00 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 21:23:37 +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 17CmZl-0001Th-00; Tue, 28 May 2002 15:24:09 -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 17CmZF-0001SW-00 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 15:23:37 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 1017 invoked by uid 1000); 28 May 2002 19:23:36 -0000 Original-To: Bruce Korb In-Reply-To: <3CF3D274.978637CD@pacbell.net> Original-Lines: 46 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:668 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:668 Bruce Korb writes: > Marius Vollmer wrote: > > > > 2) Use GMP, but have a configure switch... > > > > I think this is acceptable. A not-GMP-using libguile would be > > technically inferior to the default libguile, but that can only be > > expected. If you want the good stuff, agree to our terms. > > Then you cannot complain if a proprietary product uses a GMP-using > libguile. I could complain... but I understand that it would look like a scam to the other side. > The problem is that the person installing libguile is not > necessarily the installer of the proprietary produce. e.g., SuSE > distributes Linux with a pre-packaged libguile. The proprietary > product installation should do what? Check for GMP-enablement in > libguile and choke, or just install? As you say, we can handle this with giving distinct names to libguile, depending on its license. > > If it is not too much hassle, > > Methinks it is. I also doubt any of my "clients" use big nums, > but I put no constraints on their Scheme code, either. Without bignums, fixnums would overflow into floats. So we would have to have two versions of 'bignums' anyway, whether they are implemented with floats or with our current bignum code. Assuming that our current bignum code is correct, it wouldn't need much maintainance itself. > > What I'm trying to say is that we should not make > > ourselves a lot of work to keep the fall back be efficient. > > Fallback isn't the issue. You're talking about a new > library with new usage restrictions. Think: new name, too. Yep, this occured to me... but which one should be plain "libguile"? 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? _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel