Josh Green skrev: >> Btw, do you know any other GPL code we (optionally) link to, more than >> lash/ladcca? > I hadn't even considered the issue with GPL versus LGPL. What a mess.
It sure is. :-( > The end of the configure.ac lists other optional packages. Looking at > the list, it seems readline is also GPL. > > I admit being confused now though, since on the readline page it > mentions it is GPL but that you can use it with "GPL Compatible" > licenses. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses > > So not sure what that is all about. Hmm, it just occurred to me. It is > one thing to have your program link with a GPL library and its another > to have it in turn link with other programs, perhaps that is the > distinction? The people we're messing it up for is not ourselves, it's for applications which links with libfluidsynth AND are not GPL-compatible (contains code released under MPL, a proprietary license etc). Assuming Debian links with readline/liblash by default, they must provide their own compiled version of libfluidsynth, which does not link with readline/liblash. Anyway this is a "gotcha" that we should mention somewhere in the documentation. > Does anyone use LASH? I would miss the readline support, that is for > sure. As for readline, it could perhaps be replaced with editline, which is under BSD license. Looking it up in Debian (popcon) shows that: 104 people have installed lashd 688 people have installed liblash2 5790 people have installed libfluidsynth >> Seems like a very good idea. I could also have use for some pointers to >> why it was decided to fork the project into an 2.x branch. Sorry about the choice of words here, I meant branch, not fork (even though Wikipedia says that branching is a type of forking). // David _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev