Re: [racket-dev] LGPL

2011-03-04 Thread Matthias Felleisen
On Mar 3, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Some individual contributors will believe strongly in open source licenses As you know, we are working on a package system that should resolve this issue. A contributor who wishes to impose a different source license than 'same as Racket' ca

Re: [racket-dev] LGPL

2011-03-03 Thread Eli Barzilay
Three hours ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Eli Barzilay wrote at 03/03/2011 10:10 PM: > > Distributed under the same terms as Racket > > Would it be good practice overall to pick a specific, more limited, > license for contributors to use? I have no idea. The "distributed ... same as" is somethin

Re: [racket-dev] LGPL

2011-03-03 Thread Neil Van Dyke
Eli Barzilay wrote at 03/03/2011 10:10 PM: Distributed under the same terms as Racket Would it be good practice overall to pick a specific, more limited, license for contributors to use? I believe that a copyright holder permitting the convenient "distributed under the same terms as Racke

Re: [racket-dev] LGPL

2011-03-03 Thread Eli Barzilay
About a minute ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > For people wanting to make it easy for their PLaneT packages to be > incorporated into Racket core... should we be using LGPL 2.1, or > some other license? > > (I've been using LGPL 3 for most things lately, but I don't mind > going back to 2.1 if that's