This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: licensing for guile modules written in scheme
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: licensing for guile modules written in scheme
- From: Chris Bitmead <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:57:42 +1000
- CC: email@example.com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I don't think LGPL has anything to do with dynamic linking. LGPL basicly
says you can use it in proprietry software, but you have to contribute
back any changes to the software. GPL says you can't use it in
proprietry software. (big simplification, but that's the crux of it).
I don't see any reason why either GPL or LGPL wouldn't work. Ideally,
use exactly the same licence as guile.
> Hello all--
> I've written the beginnings of an ftp library for guile. It basically
> works, but I'm trying to determine what license to put it under.
> First off, I'd like to use the LGPL, but from what I can tell, the
> LGPL can't really apply because the LGPL is applicable for dynamically
> linked libraries only. As a result, I'm currently leaning towards the
> following licensing scheme:
> GPL + guile exception
> or (at the user's discretion)
> artistic license (similar to perl's license)
> BTW: wouldn't the above really be 3 different licensing schemes?
> Anyhow, does anyone have any ideas/preferences for me?