Michael:
I am still failing to see why a standalone would need
to be under the GPL as well.
I am in complete agreement that mandateing GPL
standalones is unacceptable.
The standalone is (correct me if I'm wrong) just a smart
stack loader and script interpreter. As long as the
executable code that is packaged with the standalone
is LGPL This shouldn't be a problem.
Two thoughts come to mind.
1) Does opensource.org have their version of a basic
Open Source license (like the GPL only nicer).
2) How does GCC handle this problem?
Or is it the conclusion of the lawyers that to be true
to the license only GPL code can be compiled with
GCC?
Thanks for listening,
-- Michael --
DeRobertis wrote:
> At 6:52 PM -0700 on 7/10/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>
> >Anthony: But it does stop them from making standalones!
> >
> >Alain : HyperCard allows standalones without any licencing hassles. If
> >HyperCard did it, why can't we?
>
> Apple wrote their own licence. We'd have to do the same, or use one that
> would allow standalones. I believe the Artistic would.
>
> >Anthony : The interpreter, if incorporated in a GPL product (opencard)
> >would have to exercise the convert to gpl clause; that is, the
> >Interpreter that came with OpenCard would of neccessity be under the
> >GPL, not the LGPL.
> >
> >Alain : What are you leaning towards now, Anthony? GPL or Perl
> >Artistic Licence or something else?
>
> I think I'm leaning towards the Perl Artistic.
