GMP integration

Aziz wrote:
> Given the number of licenses and people in the COPYRIGHT file
> that comes with the larceny distribution (501 lines), it makes
> me wonder what the implications of these licenses are.  But as
> per Will's comments, I'm sure had thought it all out.

The COPYRIGHT file reassures users of Larceny that all
code used in Larceny is used by permission of the copyright
holders.  Those copyright holders have the right to attach
conditions and disclaimers, such as those listed in the
standard SRFI copyright notice.  One of the more common
conditions, which is imposed by the SRFI copyright notice
among others, is that the full text of the owner's special
copyright notice must accompany the software.  Larceny's
COPYRIGHT file discharges that legal obligation, even for
binary distributions.

The only copyright notice or license in the COPYRIGHT file
that imposes a burden substantially beyond that of the
standard SRFI copyright is the LGPL.  See section 6d if you
are unfamiliar with its details.

I am aware that the LGPL imposes much less of a burden than
the GPL.  No part of Larceny is encumbered by the GPL.
Several distributions of Larceny are not even encumbered by
the LGPL.

Will

Hi,

William D Clinger <cesura17@yahoo.com> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès wrote: 
>
> Read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

Thank-you-very-much but can you please answer my question: what do you
mean by "unencumbered"?

I would understand in the case of GPL since it's copyleft, but I
honestly don't understand what you have in mind with LGPL.

Thanks,
Ludovic.

Ludovic Courtès writes:
> William D Clinger writes: 
>
> Thank-you-very-much but can you please answer my question: what do
> you mean by "unencumbered"?
>
> I would understand in the case of GPL since it's copyleft, but I
> honestly don't understand what you have in mind with LGPL.

Doesn't LGPL require you to provide the sources of the LGPL'd code to
those who get the binaries from you? And to allow the recipient to
rebuild the program using a possibly modified copy of that code? I
think it does.

I suppose someone wishes to distribute binary copies of some version
of Larceny without that hassle and the primary perpetrators of Larceny
want to allow that.

Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> Ludovic Court=EF=BF=BDs writes: 
>
> Doesn't LGPL require you to provide the sources of the LGPL'd code to
> those who get the binaries from you? And to allow the recipient to
> rebuild the program using a possibly modified copy of that code? I
> think it does.
>
> I suppose someone wishes to distribute binary copies of some version
> of Larceny without that hassle and the primary perpetrators of Larceny
> want to allow that.

Jussi's answer is entirely correct.

Will