Thanks Tobia for the analysis. Am Sonntag, den 02.11.2008, 12:42 +0100 schrieb Tobia Conforto: > John Cowan wrote: > > felix winkelmann scripsit: > >> Ugh. Sorry, not compatible. > > > > Sure it's compatible. LGPL code can be used as part of a larger > > work under any license: it is not viral. > > It's not strictly viral, but some of its terms would place additional > burden on Chicken users, that Felix might deem unacceptable. > > Here is my own interpretation, based on the text of the LGPL v3. > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0-standalone.html > > I'm neither advocating the inclusion of rbtree.scm nor its rejection. > This mail is meant to save Felix's and others' time, by explaining in > a clear way the restrictions posed by including LPGL code in Chicken. > > > Notes to section 0. > > "The Library" is rbtree.scm > "Combined work" are both Chicken itself and any program compiled with > Chicken.
Sure? Any program compiled by chicken? Within those programs the code does not even have to be referenced in any compiled binary. At worst I could understand that any code compiled by any compiler, e.g. chicken, using the macro could be tainted by the macros license. But I'm not sure, since, well a compiler is in a way nothing by a rather involved macro expander. ... I would understand that combined work would be the chicken distributions, if they includes the macro definition and maybe those libraries, which include the macros output. But I might be wrong at that. If I am correct, than there would have to be an alternative implementation for inclusion into proprietary programs. Which could - at least for the time being - be the old implementation. > "Applications" means all work put into Chicken and into any program > compiled with it, except for the file rbtree.scm > "Minimal Corresponding Source" is the file rbtree.scm > > Notes to section 2. > > rbtree.scm must not depend on Applications (the rest of Chicken, or > programs compiled with it) meaning that interactions between the two > parts must be limited to Applications calling rbtree's API. OK, that one would be fulfilled. > Notes to section 3. > > Combined works (again, both Chicken and programs compiled with it) > cannot be conveyed under a license that restricts modifications to the > rbtree.scm part of the work, or that restricts reverse engineering for > debugging such modifications. Hm. BSD would not restrict modifications to rbtree.scm. Prohibiting reverse engineering - I don't know. In Europe it is illegal to restrict reverse engineering for such reasons anyway. But it might be a road blocker already. > Moreover, they must be conveyed in a form suitable for relinking with > a modified version of rbtree.scm. This means that all programs > statically linked with Chicken must also be distributed in object > code, to allow relinking with a different version of rbtree.scm > > All copyright notices displayed during execution, both in Chicken and > programs compiled with it, must state that the work uses rbtree.scm > and that it's covered by the LPGL and where to find the license text. > > > John, I'd appreciate your input on whether my interpretation is correct. If that turn out to be correct, we can forget about rbtree.scm. Though I recall that LGPL does not include such a display requirement. Otherwise: could we go with the original MIT file? Skipping those improvements, we would at least end up better than before. /Jörg BTW: I ran into that wiki page and found a nice presentation: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rs/talks/LLRB/RedBlack.pdf _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
