Re: [racket-users] Appropriate open source license for a Racket based framework

2016-03-02 Thread Matthew Butterick
FWIW the LGPL is more restrictive than MIT. I license my Racket packages under the LGPL mostly for consistency. But the practical benefit is that I can copy Racket code into the package if I want to. I wouldn't be able to do that if I were using MIT (because the MIT license would be promising ri

Re: [racket-users] Appropriate open source license for a Racket based framework

2016-03-02 Thread Matthew Butterick
FWIW the LGPL is more restrictive than MIT. I license my Racket packages under the LGPL mostly for consistency. But the practical benefit is that I can copy Racket code into the package if I want to. I wouldn't be able to do that if I were using MIT (because the MIT license would be promising ri

Re: [racket-users] Appropriate open source license for a Racket based framework

2016-03-02 Thread Robby Findler
LGPL On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Leif Andersen wrote: > So, if you're not actually shipping Racket with your framework, I > don't think it really matters. And even if you are, as long as you > make it possible to relink to my own copy of Racket, I think it's fine > too (as Racket is under the GP

Re: [racket-users] Appropriate open source license for a Racket based framework

2016-03-02 Thread Leif Andersen
So, if you're not actually shipping Racket with your framework, I don't think it really matters. And even if you are, as long as you make it possible to relink to my own copy of Racket, I think it's fine too (as Racket is under the GPL). (At least, I hope it's fine, as I also have projects under t

Re: [racket-users] Appropriate open source license for a Racket based framework

2016-03-02 Thread Brian Adkins
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12:17:55 AM UTC-5, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Brian Adkins wrote on 03/01/2016 11:31 PM: > > Are there any particular license issues that I should be aware of in this > > regard? > > I don't know. Looks like core Racket is now LGPLv3, which is pretty > flexible about

Re: [racket-users] Appropriate open source license for a Racket based framework

2016-03-01 Thread Neil Van Dyke
Brian Adkins wrote on 03/01/2016 11:31 PM: Are there any particular license issues that I should be aware of in this regard? I don't know. Looks like core Racket is now LGPLv3, which is pretty flexible about commercial uses. I've been using LGPLv3 for almost all of my Racket packages since

[racket-users] Appropriate open source license for a Racket based framework

2016-03-01 Thread Brian Adkins
I've finally begun a project to create a web framework for Racket. Are there any particular license issues that I should be aware of in this regard? The MIT License is used by both Rails and Phoenix, and I've used it for other side projects, so I'm inclined to use it for this new framework unles