Re: License of Prism
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 08:16:33PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > For two reasons, I would not advocate including any binaries in the
> > package, only source code. One is that we should avoid any indication
> > that we are distributing a "medical device", per the FDA definition, as
> > the FDA regulates the distribution of such software, whether or not you
> > charge money for it. The second is that binaries depend strongly on
> > which Lisp compiler and runtime system you choose to create them, so it
> > is best to let users choose their Lisp compiler and build their own.
To be fair to the argument:
While the first part (the FDA one) is bullocks, the second
part (about the Lisp compiler dependancy) may be a much more
salient point. Better experts need to speak up on that. I do
see packages compiling Lisp in postinst.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
Reply to: