Am Sonntag, den 02.11.2008, 14:06 -0500 schrieb John Cowan: > Tobia Conforto scripsit: > > > 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 > > This is the killer part for C/C++ applications, so I have to say that > I now agree with Felix. In Java (which is what I mostly use these days) > it doesn't matter, because code is rarely if ever distributed in linked > form (using gcj); it's always distributed in .jar form, which is basically > a ZIPfile of object form.
Isn't that crazy? When you write your code trying to being agnostic about the way it's going to be compiled -- as an advanced programmer would might eventually try to do -- you can attach any copyright notice you want; the way it's being compiled will decide about the copyright!!? Hey, this opens to loop hole for inclusion: include it in object form as an dynamically linked .so! Really? }}8-o /no-comment _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users