On Sun 22 Nov 2020 at 01:32, Alexander Williams <a...@unscramble.co.jp> wrote: > Not a lawyer here, but PicoLisp 21 does **not** need to be GPL'd.
it does not because it is already compatible with GPL > Everyone seems to confuse "linking to a GPL'd library that exists on the > host computer" VS "linking to a GPL'd library that's included with the > source code". > > Please stop mixing these things. strange, i don't think that's right > If you don't have libreadline on your system, you can't compile pil21. this means that pil21 depends on GPL software and the combined work is licensed under GPL > Finally, it is also possible for PicoLisp to be "dual-licensed" under > GPL and MIT, allowing the recipients to choose which license applies > to them, but that solves nothing since MIT is already compatible with > GPL. People would normally dual-license for commercial reasons, or > when the license isn't compatible with GPL. this does not solve the issue because of the above even though pil21 is MIT licensed, the GPL dependency makes the combined work GPL licensed if i understand the raised issue correctly, alex wants the combined work to be MIT licensed, which means pil21 cannot depend on GPL software -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
