On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:18:15 +0100, er...@snafu.de
>Are you sure that's a wise choice of license?
I don't like either the GPL or LGPL.
But as a technical matter ...
>Racket does not dynamically link to Racket libraries when applications
>are deployed as compiled executables - as far as I can see, the
>standard module system does not link dynamically in the sense required
>by the LGPL(*).
You can dynamic-require a .zo (object) file.
I think the real question here is whether Racket's dynamic-require is
sufficient to meet the requirements of the LGPL license. From a
purely technical viewpoint, dynamic-require (and even normal require
for that matter) has similarities to library linking in [more]
I'm not a lawyer, so I am not competent to answer the question.
Unfortunately I doubt the GNU folks even considered the needs of Lisp
or similar languages in formulating the LGPL, even though RMS cut his
teeth working on Lisp.
>Therefore, LGPL doesn't allow anyone to distribute his
>or her Racket application as compiled executable without making the
>source code available on request, too, whenever that source code was
>made with an LGPL Racket library. So for users of your library, LGPL
>is pretty much equivalent to GPL. They have to provide the source
>code, or the program has to load the library with dynamic require at
>runtime, if that's possible at all.
YMMV, but I think this is debatable.
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 https://groups.google.com/d/optout.