From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bill Gribble Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: The Guile license and the use of LGPL libs (like GMP). Date: 28 May 2002 13:58:26 -0500 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <1022612306.7214.155.camel@firetrap> References: <87vg9oqf5b.fsf_-_@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <877klouny2.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1022613107 14239 127.0.0.1 (28 May 2002 19:11:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:11:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 17CmNm-0003hY-00 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 21:11:47 +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 17CmEh-0000JN-00; Tue, 28 May 2002 15:02:23 -0400 Original-Received: from grib.customer.jump.net ([216.30.103.2] helo=firewall.linuxdevelopersgroup.com) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17CmAs-0008QL-00 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 14:58:27 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [192.168.0.5]) by firewall.linuxdevelopersgroup.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DABCFEE; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:58:26 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <877klouny2.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:503 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:503 On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 13:28, Marius Vollmer wrote: > Personally, I would be happy to see Guile use the LGPL or even the > unmodified GPL. It makes things easier (as shown by this very issue), > but relicensing towards more restrictions should not be done lightly. > People have said that they do make use of the exception, and taking > that choice away from them would be bad. I use the exception. Were the guile-1.6 license to become strictly GPL, I would have to stick with guile-1.4 for my own code. I'm not sure exactly what the difference is between the Guile license currently and the LGPL. If I could continue to write programs that use libguile but can have licenses more restrictive than the GPL, I don't really care which license guile uses. > That would not be good. GMP is the technically Right Thing to use, > and it would be strange to refuse our 'own' software for its > restrictive license terms, wouldn't it? License issues are part of the criteria one has to use to evaluate the alternatives. If the licenses of GMP and Guile aren't compatible, it's not that strange to have to forego use of GMP. b.g. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user