On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:17:46 AM UTC+8, Joel Dueck wrote: > > On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote: >> >> Distributing a closed-source, non-LGPL Racket application without >> violating Racket’s licensing terms is likely to be very difficult or >> impossible, pending the still-ongoing MIT + Apache 2 relicensing effort. >> >> > This was startling for me to read, as I have been contemplating doing that > very thing. >
I am curious to know how you plan to comply with section 4.d of the LGPL, which states that the users of your application must be able to replace the LGPL "library" with a modified version of their own -- this means all the racket packages that you use in your application (even the ones shipped with Racket): Option 4.d.1 is not possible, since racket packages are not shared libraries. Option 4.d.0 would essentially require you to provide your customers with all the compiled object code (.zo files), along with instructions on how the user can reconstruct your application using a different Racket version -- I am not sure if this is even possible. I guess, you could provide your customers with the source code for your application (along with a license which prevents them from re-distributing it), in this case they would be able to "link in" another version of Racket. Perhaps there are other ways? I like the intent of LGPL, but I think this detail makes it a poor fit for an environment like Racket. Also, I am not a lawyer. Alex. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/c1dc8177-429f-4b08-a817-4eeb2fcc2f09%40googlegroups.com.
