RE: [Gcl-devel] Re: GCL compliance with GNU GPL

[C Y]

--- Mike Thomas <address@hidden> wrote:

> My value judgement is that it is silly to impose extra restrictions
> when we don't have to.  

Right.  The question facing us (as I understand it) is what exactly our
obligations are if we use readline.

> My vote would be to dump readline entirely in favour of an
> alternative (eg CY's suggestion) if that would really remove the 
> need for full GPL (per Sam's RMS/Bruno Haible example).

Can't say I've ever used editline - anyone know anything about it?  I
zeroed in on it as it looked like the only available replacement for
readline, but that doesn't mean it's good enough.
I'm sorta curious how we can change the license at all - does Camm as
project lead have the authority to do that?  Or does the FSF have
copyright to GCL, as a GNU project?

Whatever we do, please let's do it quickly and get back to the code.  I
don't blame the GNU folk for thinking about all this very carefully, in
fact they are to be commended.  If more SCO style FUD/crud starts
flying in the future they may be the only fortress that can withstand
the assault.  But with free software folk on all sides of the table
here and several easily workable solutions, let's get all the concerns
resolved quickly and peacefully.  The Maxima list had a huge license
discussion several weeks back, and while in the end it worked out it
was a royal pain in the neck and distracted everyone from the fun
stuff.  Dammit Jim, I'm a geek, not a lawyer ;-).

CY

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com