Thanks for the reply and the link. Reasonably informative, but
unfortunately not as definitive as one would like. What a mess. Makes me
really appreciate the permissive licenses. No headaches. :)
I was just curious if that was an option. Fortunately I believe I have
alternatives to what I was looking to do. So I can avoid it all together.
Someone posted a view by the Racket developers on their understanding of
their choice of the LGPL for Racket. It seems that they are switching to
MIT/Apache for Racket 7, the next version. They had all contributors
sign agreements to the relicensing.
https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/1570
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/racket-dev/FiBLEZ-fmn8/8uLTbNamEwAJ
Again thanks for the lesson and help.
Jimmie
On 10/02/2017 01:47 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:45, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Back on topic.
To my understanding, if I should port anything GPL licensed that I needed from
some language to a C library and licensed it GPL. Then I called my new GPL C
library via UFFI. I should have no problems at all. Is that a correct
understanding by all?
Does this look like a good approach for most anyone in the Pharo community if
they desire to port and use GPL software?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Libraries
There are different opinions, but I seem to clearly remember the GNU ReadLine
case: even though it is a library that you can link to, using it is only
allowed by other GPL programs.
Thanks.
Jimmie
On 09/15/2017 03:49 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
Hello,
Pharo 7 to my understanding fundamentally changes Pharo. It is my understanding
that Pharo 7 starts with a core Pharo kernel and like many languages out there,
imports or adds code from a variety of external sources to the image being
built.
With that understanding, I am curious if that would allow for inclusion of a
specific library/module to be licensed as GPL? And it not affect the other code
in the composed image?
I am a big believer in the MIT/BSD license and not a big fan of the GPL.
However, there is software out there that I have avoided looking at the source
code or attempting to port it to Pharo because it is GPL. I would sincerely
love if I could now port such a library and license it under the GPL as
required, and it not affect any other code outside of that specific library.
I am not a lawyer. Nor do I know any lawyers. Is is possible for someone to get
a reasonably definitive answer on this question?
I am sure I am not the only one who has had this desire. I am also sure that I
am not the only one who will have this question in the future. So it would be
nice to have a proper legal response that could possibly be explicitly stated
somewhere on the website or on an FAQ or something.
Regardless of the answer, yes or no. It does need to be a settled issue for
Pharo. That way someone could know if GPL/LGPL or whatever software could be in
the catalog.
Just wanted to put that out there to the community. I look forward to the
answer, should one be or become available.
Thanks.
Jimmie
