Re: the Lisp Lesser General Public License
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> wrote:
> The LLGPL doesn't look like a problem from a DFSG standpoint to me. Its
> real effect appears to be a liberalization of the copyleft in the LGPL
> ("Since Lisp only offers one choice, which is to link the Library into
> an executable at build time, we declare that, for the purpose applying
> the LGPL to the Library, an executable that results from linking a "work
> that uses the Library" with the Library is considered a "work that uses
> the Library" and is therefore NOT covered by the LGPL.")
> debian-legal, what do you guys think?
Since they aren't getting rid of clause 3 (conversion to GPL), then it
is without a doubt DFSG free.