[plt-scheme] License question

From: Robby Findler (robby.findler at gmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 10 07:14:46 EST 2007

I'm certain that none of us would even consider hanging, drawing, or
quartering for that. In fact, we tried to pick a license that would
allow you to avoid abuse of any kind for using our software in a
commercial setting.


On 3/9/07, Greg Johnston <greg.johnston at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/07, John Clements <clements at brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
> > I don't see a response on the list, so perhaps others were also
> > confused by your message.  Are you suggesting that the automatic
> > inclusion of (require)'d libraries into the executable renders your
> > code a part of the executable and therefore that the LGPL requires
> > you to distribute it?  My understanding (I'm approximately 25%
> > certain of this) is that this is not the case (though it might be
> > with the "real" GPL), and that you're free to distribute an
> > executable that includes your compiled code along with the DrScheme
> > compiled code _without_ making your source code freely accessible.
> >
> > Again: LGPL != GPL.  But you knew that already, right?
> >
> > IANAL, etc...
> Cool. I completely understand that YANAL (me either...hence the
> question :-p ) but does the group at large (particularly PLT
> developers) believe that it is fair to suggest that I might do this
> without being hung, quartered, and drawn?
> Thanks,
> Greg
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.