[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [chicken-users] silex GPL-2 licensed?

From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: [chicken-users] silex GPL-2 licensed?
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:14:27 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Leonardo Valeri Manera quotavit:

> >         Obviously, you have the non-licensed version in hand because,
> >  otherwise, you would have seen the license.

Right.  So there's no question of our our egg being a GPLed version.
Unless, indeed, someone has been so unscrupulous as to take a modified
GPLed version and remove the license -- but if so, we are not responsible,
only the license mutilator is responsible.

> >         If it were just for me, you can do whatever you want with
> >  SILex.  However, I don't know if you would still have problems despite
> >  what I just wrote.
> >
> >         That being said, I'm glad to see that SILex is used that much
> >  and helps numerous people.

I would take these two paragraphs of the letter (or the whole letter)
and add it to the egg in a file called "LICENSE" and leave the license
category as "Other".  That way, various people, groups, and companies
can make their own decisions about what they can do with this license.
For myself, I'd accept it as a permissive (BSD-style) license; YMMV.

For myself, I feel it would be better not to have GPLed eggs, except when
(as in my own case, q-lang) they are interfaces to underlying programs
which are themselves GPLed.  However, it is better to have a GPLed egg
than no egg.

And it was said that ever after, if any                 John Cowan
man looked in that Stone, unless he had a               address@hidden
great strength of will to turn it to other    
purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering
in flame.   --"The Pyre of Denethor"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]