> yes, I noticed that, but I'm not sure that makes any difference in this case. > If code ends up being JITed together with the runtime libraries during > execution there's no "easy relinking" possible any more.
So, if you give me the .zo file that you get when you run `raco make`, I can (at least in theory) take that .zo file and run it against different implementations of the Racket VM. I think that is what the page is talking about how it interprets relinking. > If the intention wasn't to force programs written in racket to be open > source, then why wasn't an explicit exemption of the runtime libraries made, > like other projects have? (As stated, like it was done for e.g. GCC and Java.) This is probably because none of us are lawyers. And are thus hesitant to write legal documents. > So shipping the executable already trivially satisfies the LGPL then? (At > least given racket-lang.org's current interpretation of the LGPL.) That and the .zo file that you get by running raco make. Again though, I am not a lawyer. So if you need actual professional legal advice, please get an actual one. ~Leif Andersen On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:08 AM, George Bevan <g.u.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the prompt reply. > > Maybe I didn't look close enough - the license page I landed on was this one: > http://docs.racket-lang.org/license/index.html > > Still, > >> This page points out that Racket is released under the LGPL (rather >> than the GPL) > > yes, I noticed that, but I'm not sure that makes any difference in this case. > If code ends up being JITed together with the runtime libraries during > execution there's no "easy relinking" possible any more. > > If the intention wasn't to force programs written in racket to be open > source, then why wasn't an explicit exemption of the runtime libraries made, > like other projects have? (As stated, like it was done for e.g. GCC and Java.) > > >> Furthermore, this is not revealing any more of your source code than >> the raco exe format, since the bytecode is embedded in an extractable >> way in the resulting executable. > > So shipping the executable already trivially satisfies the LGPL then? (At > least given racket-lang.org's current interpretation of the LGPL.) > > > On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 7:46:45 AM UTC+1, Leif Andersen wrote: >> You can find the license that Racket is released under here: >> https://download.racket-lang.org/license.html >> >> This page points out that Racket is released under the LGPL (rather >> than the GPL), and also says: >> >> First, if you distribute your Racket application in source form or as >> compiled bytecode files, the Racket license does not restrict you at >> all. >> >> Second, if you distribute your Racket application as compiled binary >> generated by raco exe, there are no requirements placed on the >> licensing of your software. However, the LGPL requires that you make >> it possible to re-link your software with modified versions of Racket. >> This means, basically, that you need to provide the compiled bytecode >> files used to produce the compiled binary, if requested by someone who >> got your software from you. Note that this does not mean that your >> software has to be made open source, nor do you have to give the >> source code to anyone, nor do you have to make the compiled bytecode >> files available to the public or let other people redistribute them. >> Furthermore, this is not revealing any more of your source code than >> the raco exe format, since the bytecode is embedded in an extractable >> way in the resulting executable. >> >> (It also says at the bottom of the page: We are, of course, not >> lawyers, and this should not be taken as legal advice. However, we >> wanted to make it clear that Racket is an appropriate building block >> for all kinds of software, and to clarify how we view the license of >> Racket.) >> >> Hope that helps. >> >> ~Leif Andersen >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:40 AM, George Bevan <g.u.be...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Do programs written in Racket that use the libraries of racket-lang.org's >> > implementation need to be licensed under GPL terms? Much like it is the >> > case with e.g. the libraries in AdaCore's Ada implementation? >> > >> > Or is there a "Runtime Library Exception" or a "Classpath Exception" or >> > similar, like it is the case for GCC or Java/JDK? >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Racket Users" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
