Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
"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.
The fact that Marc's rbtree code is written as lambda templates
(macros) instead of plain lambdas, for the purpose of optimization, is
immaterial. Every program compiled with Chicken would include those
algorithms and thus be governed by their license.
I recall that LGPL does not include such a display requirement.
It does, in the version I analyzed. Now that you mention it, maybe
version 2 did not.
Otherwise: could we go with the original MIT file? Skipping those
improvements, we would at least end up better than before.
Yes, that seems to be the best course of action, unless Marc consents
to re-release his code under a BSD license for inclusion in Chicken.
If we ask nicely, he might very well do!
By the way Marc, writing (license: lgpl/v2.1) in the middle of a
scheme module is not enough to place the program under a specific
license. You need to write a conspicuous and verbose notice at the
top of it. (This program is free software, you can redistribute it...
blah blah... WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY... blah blah. I'm sure you've seen
it a thousand times!) Here is an howto: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
Tobia
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
