Re: Licence guidance

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 to racket-users+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.