From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tomas@fabula.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: What if Guile changed its license to be LGPL? Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:05:07 +0200 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020605070507.GA13622@www> References: <87elfmu98g.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <3CFD1EDF.8050403@bothner.com> <873cw2u417.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <3CFD375D.9080302@bothner.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1023261858 14151 127.0.0.1 (5 Jun 2002 07:24:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 07:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17FV9W-0003g8-00 for ; Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:24:18 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164]) by hermes.netfonds.no (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g557NwuM008389 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:23:58 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17FV7I-0006PQ-00; Wed, 05 Jun 2002 03:22:00 -0400 Original-Received: from www.elogos.de ([212.18.192.92]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17FUkv-0004To-00 for ; Wed, 05 Jun 2002 02:58:53 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 5002) id 2DDFF1049A3; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:05:07 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: guile-user@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CFD375D.9080302@bothner.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i 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:538 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:538 On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:55:41PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote: [...] > More importantly, if this complicates Guile and possibly lessens > the "marketing power" of Guile, if may be in the FSF's interested > to work out some kind of exception for Guile. They don't have to > change the license for GMP in general. You can add some kind of > exception where as long as an Guile application does not use the > GMP C API directly, but only indirectly via Scheme code or other > public Guile APIs, then the application is still covered by the > Guile license, with exception. IMHO: Please, don't. Complicated licenses also lessen the `marketing power' of a product. I'd tend to Marius' approach of moving towards LGPL and away from Guile exception, as long as there are no issues with current users/uses. And if there are, I think it'd be worthwile to try to resolve them. [answering `yes' although Marius said only to answer in `no' case, but I think the point of `license simplicity' is very important: we have more and more small variations of open-ish licenses these days] Regards -- tomas _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user