Re: CVS commit by root in apache: httpd.conf, +cvs.zeit.de

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:52:34AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:29:02PM +0100, Nic wrote:
> > address@hidden writes:
> > 
> > > I would phrase that different: the more one modules that are 
> > > available, the better. But i really don't see why a markup 
> > > parser has to be in the language core. What's so horrible about 
> > >  
> > >  (use-modules (parsers xml libxml2))

I don't think that Nic was suggesting putting a markup-parser `in the
language core' (stuffing an XML-parsing API into the top-level
namespace? Yeah--bleh....), just shipping (parsers xml libxml2) with
guile; I figured that he was suggesting a philosophy like the Python
community's `batteries included' one--they still do `import xmllib'
(or whatever it is, these days), but they ship `xmllib' along with
Python, so that the users aren't required to find, download, and
install the packages separately.

Did I miss something?

> > > Yes, but if some core code of guile links against code under 
> > > different licences (like, in libxml2's case, the MIT licence) 
> > > it starts to get messy. I really don't want to have to go through 
> > > a whole pile of licences before a start looking at a project 
> > > (one is more than enough). 
> > 
> > I don't see the problem as long as guile is promising that such code
> > will be licenced under GPL compatible licences.
> 
> And who is to decide what's GPL compatible?

There's a list of known GPL-compatible licenses (as well as what
"GPL-compatible" means) on www.gnu.org:

    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

> And that alone doesn't solve my (the developer/user's) problem.

Doesn't it?

> It's still possible that my code can live with GPL but might be
> clashing with <whatever GPL-compatible licence>.

Since "GPL-compatible" means that it's acceptable to take any subset
of <whatever>'s (say, libxml2's) code, put it into <something else>, and
license that <something else>, as a whole, under the GPL..., I don't
see how your statement makes any sense--

> I strongly vote for the one-licence model.

this -is- a one-license model, isn't it?

Now, having said all of that..., guile isn't distributed under the
GPL--it's GPL-with-special-guile-exception-clause..., but libxml2's
license appears to be guile-compatible, and I imagine that Nic's
bindings' license is, also, yes?

pgpY_voCzn4Pu.pgp
Description: PGP signature