Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm going to raise this license on the debian-legal mailing list just to
> get some second opinions on it and otherwise get the -legal list
> familiar with it, because I don't recall having seen it mentioned there
> before. (Or maybe I just missed it.)
>
> I am not sure the FSF would agree with Franz Incorporated's
> interpretation of how the LGPL would apply to a Lisp module, but on the
> other hand the document at the URL does seem to cover that possibility
> by claiming to supersede the LGPL in any case where the meanings
> conflict.
>
> 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?
Very good, Branden. I'm also eager to hear what debian-legal thinks
about the mk-defsystem3 license. The upstream author said he'd be
willing to make the license DFSG compliant, but he wasn't exactly sure
what was incompatible about that license.
--
Kevin Rosenberg | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
http://b9.com/debian.html | : :' : The universal
GPG signed and encrypted | `. `' Operating System
messages accepted. | `- http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
pgp9OTYjTgDDI.pgp
Description: PGP signature