[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary
From: |
Linas Vepstas |
Subject: |
Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary |
Date: |
Mon, 3 May 2004 09:40:24 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:58:24PM -0700, Mike Gran was heard to remark:
>
> FWIW, it is legit to use Guile in non-free software. From the README
> of 1.6.4: "The license of Guile consists of the GNU GPL plus a special
> statement giving blanket permission to link with non-free software."
>
> So, any patches to Guile itself are to be released according to the
> GPL. But one could deliver a proprietary, precompiled program that
> dynamically links to Guile without violating the licence.
So what's the difference between that and LGPL?
If so, then why isn't guile under LGPL?
--linas
--
pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <address@hidden>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933
- Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Mike Gran, 2004/05/02
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Thamer Al-Harbash, 2004/05/02
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Mike Gran, 2004/05/02
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary,
Linas Vepstas <=
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Mike Gran, 2004/05/03
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Rob Browning, 2004/05/14
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Marius Vollmer, 2004/05/15
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Rob Browning, 2004/05/15
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Marius Vollmer, 2004/05/17
- Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Marius Vollmer, 2004/05/24
Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Linas Vepstas, 2004/05/03
Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary, Paul Emsley, 2004/05/04