Re: The Guile license and the use of LGPL libs (like GMP).

[Rob Browning]

"Jeff Read" <address@hidden> writes:

> I rather like the notion of Guile as "SIOD on steroids". Basically a
> relatively lightweight, self-contained, but very powerful and
> RnRS-compliant Scheme with strengths in extension and
> integration. For this purpose, anyway, options 2 and 4 are
> best. Option 3 is a possibility if we bundle in GMP with Guile.

Option 3 could be possible even if we don't bundle.  It kinda depends
on how RMS, the GMP people, etc. feel about the issue.  I suspect
there may not be any serious technical reasons preventing a Guile
exception from being added to the mainstream GMP license, but that
doesn't mean they'd think it was a good idea :>

> Right now I'm compiling Guile out-of-the-box (out-of-the-tarball?)
> on a stock OpenBSD system, which doesn't come all tricked out like a
> lot of popular GNU/Linux distros do. I'd like to continue to be able
> to do this, and not sweat too much about libraries that Guile
> depends on for its very existence.

So in your opinion, would requiring GMP, even if the licensing issues
were worked out be too big a hassle?

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD