So, if I provide the .o binary, I'm good to go?
But what about the build process? Should I simply load my code using ASDF?
I'm also considering using chicken scheme, because the BSD licence makes
things simpler.
On 6 Jul 2013 06:20, "Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll" <
juanjose.garciarip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon <
> p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You can use a static LGPL library, as long as you provide your
>> proprietary .o, and the Makefile to link them with a substituted static
>> library (used modified or different implementation).
>>
>
> I agree with this: you basically have to offer another static library that
> can be linked against a newer version of ECL. In practice, nobody will, and
> this license is a remnant of old times which I cannot change due to former
> authors and contributors.
>
>
> --
> Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
> c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
> http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Ecls-list mailing list
> Ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ecls-list mailing list
Ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
