What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[Marius Vollmer]

Hi,

we had this topic some time ago, but I would like to bring it up
again.

We want to use the GNU MP library (GMP) for our bignum calculations,
simply because this is the Right Thing to do, technically.  However,
GMP is licensed with the Lesser GPL, which is more restrictive than
the current license of Guile.

The permissive license of Guile has been chosen so that it will be on
par with other extension libraries, like TCL, license-wise and to make
it easier for Guile to become the extension language of choice.  This
hasn't happened as far as I can see, and thus the original reason for
Guile's special license might no longer be valid.

In the course of discussing the 'GMP situation' with RMS, he said that
he'd rather change Guile's license to be the LGPL instead of the
alternative, that would consist of leaving Guile's license in place,
using GMP nevertheless (effectively turning Guile's license into the
LGPL), and providing a configure-time option to omit GMP (and thereby
reactivating the original license).

I would like to hear your opinion about this (again).  The reason I
bring this topic up again is that now I really think we should
consider switching to the LGPL and so there is immediate danger now
for the people who don't want that to happen.  Please bring forth your
arguments.  We are not in a hurry, but if you need time to consult
your lawyers etc please say so briefly so that I know that there's
something coming up.

Also, if consider the switch to the LGPL to be a good thing, please
say so.


(One more thing: if we would switch to the LGPL, but you need the
current license conditions of Guile, you can ask the FSF for a
'custom' license.  You would have to make the work of making Guile
work without GMP yourself, but that should not be difficult and there
is code out there to help you with that.)

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>]

I'm all for guile being LGPLed.  My code for travlib
<http://travtrack.sf.net/> is all GPLed as it is.

-- 
Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>
I remember when everybody posted to Usenet with their real, deliverable
e-mail address.  Of all the sins committed by the spammers, destroying
the viability of the open Internet was the worst.
                      --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[tomas]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:56:57PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we had this topic some time ago, but I would like to bring it up
> again.

[...]

> Also, if consider the switch to the LGPL to be a good thing, please
> say so.

Well, I'd prefer (L)GPL. Mainly for licensing simplicity. It's not
easy to grok the ramifications of licenses; the proliferation of
open-source licenses of late hasn't helped either. And LGPL *is*
quite liberal. I can't imagine a setting where someone might have
difficulties with it (my fantasy is quite limited), whereas the
Guile exception has created difficulties of its own.

The only question that would remain for me is: the numerous
folks who worked on Guile did that under the assumption of the
current Guile license. How do *they* feel about a change?

Regards
-- tomas

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

   From: tomas@fabula.de
   Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:30:06 +0200

   The only question that would remain for me is: the numerous
   folks who worked on Guile did that under the assumption of the
   current Guile license. How do *they* feel about a change?

as long as old-license guile remains old-license, i'm happy; some weird
retroactive relicensing of old-license guile would be bait-and-switch.
i don't think that's possible, but only FSF can say for sure.  (one
would hope they'd not entertain that stupidity even if it is possible.)

thi

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[tomas]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:14:10PM -0700, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>    From: tomas@fabula.de
>    Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:30:06 +0200
> 
>    The only question that would remain for me is: the numerous
>    folks who worked on Guile did that under the assumption of the
>    current Guile license. How do *they* feel about a change?
> 
> as long as old-license guile remains old-license, i'm happy; some weird

This goes for me without saying...

> retroactive relicensing of old-license guile would be bait-and-switch.
> i don't think that's possible, but only FSF can say for sure.  (one
> would hope they'd not entertain that stupidity even if it is possible.)

I can't imagine retroactive. Still, it'd be nice to know how the other
major contributors to Guile feel about that.

BTW, how do *you* feel ;-)

Regards
-- tomas

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[Dale P. Smith]

On 27 Jun 2002 21:56:57 +0200
Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> wrote:

> we had this topic some time ago, but I would like to bring it up
> again.

> Also, if consider the switch to the LGPL to be a good thing, please
> say so.

Hmm.  I was planning on releasing mod_guile as soon as the license issue
was settled.  Because of a conflict between the Apache license and the
GPL (probably the LGPL too?) I would prefer that Guile continue to use
the current license.

-Dale

-- 
Dale P. Smith
Senior Systems Consultant,      | Treasurer,
Altus Technologies Corporation  | Cleveland Linux Users Group
dsmith@altustech.com            | http://cleveland.lug.net
440-746-9000 x339               |

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[tomas]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:46:58PM -0400, Dale P. Smith wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2002 21:56:57 +0200
> Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> wrote:
> 
[Guile possibly LGPL]

> Hmm.  I was planning on releasing mod_guile as soon as the license issue
> was settled.  Because of a conflict between the Apache license and the
> GPL (probably the LGPL too?) I would prefer that Guile continue to use
> the current license.

I wasn't aware of that. In which way there might be problems linking
Apache with an LGPL lib? Don't they use Gnu libc, at least on some
platforms? Or do you have to `mix' Guile and Apache at the `source
level'?

Regards
-- tomas

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[Marius Vollmer]

"Dale P. Smith" <dsmith@altustech.com> writes:

> Hmm.  I was planning on releasing mod_guile as soon as the license issue
> was settled.  Because of a conflict between the Apache license and the
> GPL (probably the LGPL too?) I would prefer that Guile continue to use
> the current license.

We need to be sure about this.  RMS said that there wouldn't probably
be a problem since Apache is already using the LGPLed libc.  I will
ask on the "Apache module writer's list" and CC you...

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

Re: What if Guile changed its license to be Lesser GPL?

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:

    Marius> I would like to hear your opinion about this (again).

In principle, I'm happy for Guile to move to LGPL.

(As the solution to the particular GMP problem, I still think it's a
bit shortsighted, as previously raised.  We should first perform a
review of all the other bits of free software that it might make sense
to incorporate into Guile core, then decide Guile's licence in the
light of the licences of all those constituents.)

        Neil


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