> On 17 Feb 2016, at 18:34, David Matthews <[email protected]> > wrote: > ... > Of more concern is that LZO is licensed under GPL rather than LGPL. Poly/ML > is licensed under LGPL and that means that it cannot include or even link to > LZO without coming under GPL. That doesn't preclude experimenting with it > but for distribution I'd prefer a library that didn't have these problems.
It would cause me significant problems if the Poly/ML licence changed to GPL. I can't understand why the LZO developers chose GPL rather than LGPL unless they hope that decision would force people to buy their commercial offering (which I believe is a doomed business plan). Regards, Rob. _______________________________________________ polyml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
