Yes, it could be that LGPL is not the best for Racket package authors
who intend something analogous to LGPL for C libraries. (Or who intend
not necessarily that, but something in the neighborhood of that flavor
or degree.)
Law quickly gets way outside my expertise, and the finer points seem to
need the most masochistic brainiac lawyers to wrestle, so I'd only like
to throw out 3 quick comments at this time:
* The Racket package system, and ways that systems using Racket are
distributed in practice, as well as the market potential, have changed
since I picked a license.
* I think industry and open source practice, the information technology
infrastructure, and the world have all changed substantially since open
source people really-really rethought licenses.
* Having been engaged with GNU and FSF for many years, and occasionally
talking with RMS, including about "linking" subtleties and
implications... the various FSF technicalities are usually imperfect, or
not entirely clear. (The reason seems to be difficulty of legal
constructs that capture intent over decades, for evolving technology,
and without the benefit/curse of a legislative system. Though the FSF
remains an interactive component, for one-on-one interpretation, as well
as leaving the "or any later version" evolutionary hook in the language.)
--
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.
