On 2016-02-12 09:47:44 -0500, Leif Andersen wrote:
> > If the intention wasn't to force programs written in racket to be open
> > source, then why wasn't an explicit exemption of the runtime libraries
> > made, like other projects have? (As stated, like it was done for e.g. GCC
> > and Java.)
>
> yes, I noticed that, but I'm not sure that makes any difference in this case.
> If code ends up being JITed together with the runtime libraries during
> execution there's no "easy relinking" possible any more.
So, if you give me the .zo file that you get when you run `raco make`,
I can (at
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Leif Andersen wrote:
>> If the intention wasn't to force programs written in racket to be open
>> source, then why wasn't an explicit exemption of the runtime libraries made,
>> like other projects have? (As stated, like it was done for
Do programs written in Racket that use the libraries of racket-lang.org's
implementation need to be licensed under GPL terms? Much like it is the case
with e.g. the libraries in AdaCore's Ada implementation?
Or is there a "Runtime Library Exception" or a "Classpath Exception" or
similar, like
You can find the license that Racket is released under here:
https://download.racket-lang.org/license.html
This page points out that Racket is released under the LGPL (rather
than the GPL), and also says:
First, if you distribute your Racket application in source form or as
compiled bytecode
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Maybe I didn't look close enough - the license page I landed on was this one:
http://docs.racket-lang.org/license/index.html
Still,
> This page points out that Racket is released under the LGPL (rather
> than the GPL)
yes, I noticed that, but I'm not sure that
6 matches
Mail list logo