Yes, it could be that LGPL is not the best for Racket package authors who intend something analogous to LGPL for C libraries.  (Or who intend not necessarily that, but something in the neighborhood of that flavor or degree.)

Law quickly gets way outside my expertise, and the finer points seem to need the most masochistic brainiac lawyers to wrestle, so I'd only like to throw out 3 quick comments at this time:

* The Racket package system, and ways that systems using Racket are distributed in practice, as well as the market potential, have changed since I picked a license.

* I think industry and open source practice, the information technology infrastructure, and the world have all changed substantially since open source people really-really rethought licenses.

* Having been engaged with GNU and FSF for many years, and occasionally talking with RMS, including about "linking" subtleties and implications... the various FSF technicalities are usually imperfect, or not entirely clear.  (The reason seems to be difficulty of legal constructs that capture intent over decades, for evolving technology, and without the benefit/curse of a legislative system.  Though the FSF remains an interactive component, for one-on-one interpretation, as well as leaving the "or any later version" evolutionary hook in the language.)

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 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to