Quoth Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > () Sebastian Tennant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > () Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:08:37 +0200 > > What was this special exception and was it the reason for the fork? > > The fork was over deprecation of some libguile API elements, plus > administrative snafu. The special exception can be seen in some Guile > releases in the top-level README: > > | The exception is that, if you link the GUILE library with other files > | to produce an executable, this does not by itself cause the > | resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. > | Your use of that executable is in no way restricted on account of > | linking the GUILE library code into it.
Very interesting. Presumably this is/was to encourage use of Guile across the board (i.e., in non-free environments too)? > Good luck. I'd be very interested to know a little more about the > politics e.t.c.... perhaps off-list?.. even though you describe the fork > as amicable. > > Here's my recollection of events: Thanks for taking the time to write this. I can't say exactly _why_ it's nice to know how the situation came about, but it is, nevertheless. > So i see 1.4.x not really so much a fork as a long-lived non-local > branch. Now that there is new Guile maintainership, i think it would be > a good idea to merge some of the good stuff from that branch into the > trunk. I'd say so. As someone who wants to use Guile for scripting database-backed websites and the like, guile-pg and guile-www are two essential components. Fortunately your guile-www _does_ work with guile-1.8. > Git supports branches much better than cvs, so there is now even > less reason for the shutout. I hope the maintainers are listening. Surely it's time to let bygones be bygones and work for the common good of Guile and all who sail in her. > We all cope as best we can. Indeed we do. Thanks for your comprehensive and informative reply. Sebastian -- Emacs' AlsaPlayer - Music Without Jolts http://sebyte.org/eap.html
