Re: [Chicken-users] Comprehensive documentation rewrite

[Ivan Raikov]

  Well, it is simply not true. Source code with a non-BSD license that
gets imported as an egg does not magically become BSD-licensed. There
are also many eggs that are actively in use that are not licensed
under the BSD. For example, most of the prerequisites of svnwiki are
licensed under the GPL. Your statements are a gross
mischaracterization of the situation. The GPL/LGPL versioning is a
separate issue, and I would say that most eggs released under that
license fall under the default GPL category of "v2 or later", except
for the eggs I maintain, which are "GPL v3 or later" for all but one.

  By the way, if the egg licenses are an issue for any distribution,
then one might consider the Debian approach -- if the license for a
particular package is incompatible with Debian, in many cases this is
dealt with by approaching the author(s) of that package and asking
them if it would be possible to issue a Debian-only open-source
compatible license for that package. The inconsistent licenses for the
eggs don't matter with Chicken, because the Chicken itself is not
distributed together with any eggs, but this might become an issue for
a Linux distribution.

 
   -Ivan


Elf <address@hidden> writes:

> i was only referring to currently maintained eggs, as i stated in
> the post, and only to those with (L)GPL licensing.  all i SAID was
> that most currently maintained eggs are released under BSD, and how
> to find the licence revision for the LGPL eggs that have been ported
> from elsewhere.  the LGPL ver is what seemed to matter from
> Leonadro's post, which is why that was the issue i responded to.
> precisely where am i spreading misinformation?