Re: The Guile license and the use of LGPL libs (like GMP).

[Bruce Korb <bkorb@pacbell.net>]

Rob Browning wrote:
> > Dynamic linking is not entirely sufficient to comply with LGPL;
> > rights to modify for own use and reverse engineer to debug that use
> > must also be granted [[...]].  But I
> > maintain that departing from the guile exception is a substantial
> > philosophical shift.  Only free software weenies seem to use guile
> > as it is, so a change probably wouldn't hurt much.

I use guile.  My stuff *is* used in commercial environments
that is hostile to LGPL.  If you change and leave me with no
migration path, I'll wind up locked into a frozen version.
I suppose I could change to a Perl extension engine, but
that's real work....

> If the analysis is correct, then it seems like we have a few choices:
> 
>   1) Use (and require) GMP anyway and expect people to accomodate the
>      licensing changes.

No, please.

>   2) Use GMP, but have a configure switch that allows you to omit it,
>      either with fallback non-GMP bignum support, or perhaps no
>      bignums at all.

If this bypasses the licensing issue, great.

>   3) Ask the relevant parties whether or not they might be willing to
>      extend the guile exception to GMP, i.e. add a special Guile
>      clause to the GMP license.

Murky.  Probably legally okay, but businesses want to focus on
business and not wrestle with murky issues.

>   4) Abandon GMP and continue to do things ourselves.

Better than #1 or #3.

_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user