On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 07:20:31PM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Aside: One thing I don't want is anyone new to Racket and open source > licensing to get a chance drive-by impression that Racket has unusual > "licensing problems". I saw this concern multiple times recently. I'd say > Racket's standard licensing (for using it as a compiler/runtime/libraries) > is pretty commercial-friendly, especially given the willingness (perhaps, > desperation) of a lot of Racketeers to encourage commercial adoption. Worst > case might be that a particular attorney will just need some clarifications > that people are happy to help with.
The only problem I see is with the ue of macros in the propietary part of your software. They make it difficult to take your object code and link it with revised versions of the LGPL'd Racket code. It seems to me that the LGPL does not require you to be able to link with incompatible versions of LGPL'd code, so this should not be a *legal* problem, but would be a severe practical problem for your customers. Anyone know for sure? In any case you should be able to release your proprietary source code to your customers. They they could install it on their working Racket systems. -- hendrik > > > -- > 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 to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/7f441387-cb9c-5cd5-0d7b-c6d8f8919409%40neilvandyke.org. -- 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 to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20190824124838.yhq6wge2z6q2t7ql%40topoi.pooq.com.