On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Yuri Albuquerque <yuridenom...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So, if I provide the .o binary, I'm good to go?
>
This is what at least two people have told you: a library with your object
files and a Makefile or instructions to link those files with ECL.
> But what about the build process? Should I simply load my code using ASDF?
>
I do not understand this. There are about 30 threads discussing how to
build shared libraries or statically linked libraries from user code using
ASDF's MAKE-BUILD.
> I'm also considering using chicken scheme,
>
So what. Do you expect us to convince you of the opposite? I have tried
many different platforms along my life, and the decision is a very personal
one.
> because the BSD licence makes things simpler.
>
LGPL version 2 only has one complication: it forces you to redistribute the
binaries to the people that buy your software. In what sense is this much
more complex?
LGPL version 2 on the other hand has something important: it forces people
that derive new versions of ECL to make them public. I find that this is
important, because it is not fair that freelancers and private companies
profit from free software without reverting anything back to the community.
Note also that this is LGPL version 2, not the more recent version 3 from
the FSF.
Juanjo
--
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
