Hi all - <br><br>Not sure if this email got lost in the shuffle or not - I haven't seen a response to this question. Hopefully this is not a taboo question ;) <br><br>Thanks,<br>yinso <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 4/2/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Yin-So Chen</b> <<a href="mailto:yinso.chen@gmail.com">yinso.chen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi all - <br><br>Based on <a href="http://www.plt-scheme.org/license/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.plt-scheme.org/license/</a> PLT is licensed under LGPL as a whole. However, I found some files in PLT that appear to be licensed in GPL:
<br>
<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">collects/mzlib/deflate.ss (this one might be in LGPL - the GPL appears to be a statement that applied only to the version in C) <br>collects/net/mime-unit.ss<br>collects/net/mime.ss<br>
collects/profj/* <br></div><br>Are these license verbiage intentional (i.e. these specific files are licensed separately) or are they unintentional (i.e. didn't remove them)? And do they affect the whole distribution's (given GPL is a strong viral) licensing?
<br><br>Couldn't find answers via googling - hopefully I didn't miss something obvious ;) <br><br>Thanks,<br>yinso <br clear="all"><span class="sg"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.yinsochen.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.yinsochen.com</a><br>...continuous learning...
</span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.yinsochen.com">http://www.yinsochen.com</a><br>...continuous learning...