[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Jeff Read
Subject: Re: The Guile license and the use of LGPL libs (like GMP).
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:21:33 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:35:44AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
> 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.
>   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.
>   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.
>   4) Abandon GMP and continue to do things ourselves.
> Thoughts?

I don't think option 1 is a good idea, both from a licensing standpoint 
(because changing licenses, especially from less restrictive ones to more 
restrictive ones, is tricky) and from a more pragmatic standpoint concerning 
Guile's deployment.

I rather like the notion of Guile as "SIOD on steroids". Basically a relatively 
lightweight, self-contained, but very powerful and RnRS-compliant Scheme with 
strengths in extension and integration. For this purpose, anyway, options 2 and 
4 are best. Option 3 is a possibility if we bundle in GMP with Guile.

Right now I'm compiling Guile out-of-the-box (out-of-the-tarball?) on a stock 
OpenBSD system, which doesn't come all tricked out like a lot of popular 
GNU/Linux distros do. I'd like to continue to be able to do this, and not sweat 
too much about libraries that Guile depends on for its very existence.

Jeffrey T. Read
"I fight not for me but the blind babe Justice!" --Galford

reply via email to

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