Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Does the LPGL and the existence of fgmp make it ok to distribute the > interface/XS code and rely on the end user to install gmp if they so > choose? Ick. I hate licensing problems.) This is actually one of the reasons I'd like to see the licensing working group to continue indefinitely. We need to decide: "Do we want perl6 to depend on libraries with somewhat stricter licenses?" I personally think that the relying on LGPL'ed code is completely reasonable. Some will disagree, so we need to come to a consensus on this as a community. Also, note that as long as our license is compatible with the LGPL (and most licenses are). There are no licensing problems for us, but we might be creating hassles for those who redistribute proprietary software versions of perl. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
- Re: standard representations Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: standard representations Andy Dougherty
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Andy Dougherty
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Tim Jenness
- Re: standard representations Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations David Grove
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- public domain? (was Re: standa... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations Andy Dougherty
- Re: standard representations Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- licensing issues (was Re: stan... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: standard representations Uri Guttman
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Peter Buckingham
- Re: standard representations Dan Sugalski
- Re: standard representations Nick Ing-Simmons