Re: Packaging a guile-enabled binary

[Marius Vollmer]

address@hidden (Linas Vepstas) writes:

> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:58:24PM -0700, Mike Gran was heard to remark:
>> 
>> FWIW, it is legit to use Guile in non-free software.  From the README
>> of 1.6.4: "The license of Guile consists of the GNU GPL plus a special
>> statement giving blanket permission to link with non-free software."
>> 
>> So, any patches to Guile itself are to be released according to the
>> GPL.  But one could deliver a proprietary, precompiled program that
>> dynamically links to Guile without violating the licence.
>
> So what's the difference between that and LGPL? 

(As far as I know:) The LGPL has the requirement that the
code-using-the-library must be distributed in such a way that the user
can modify the LGPL-library and have the code-that-uses-the-library
use the modified version of the LGPL-library.

The (old) Guile license didn't require this.

> If so, then why isn't guile under LGPL?

The next version of Guile will be under the GNU LGPL.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405