Re: The Guile license and the use of LGPL libs (like GMP).

[Bruce Korb]

Marius Vollmer wrote:

> >   2) Use GMP, but have a configure switch...
> 
> I think this is acceptable.  A not-GMP-using libguile would be
> technically inferior to the default libguile, but that can only be
> expected.  If you want the good stuff, agree to our terms.

Then you cannot complain if a proprietary product uses a GMP-using
libguile.  The problem is that the person installing libguile is
not necessarily the installer of the proprietary produce.  e.g.,
SuSE distributes Linux with a pre-packaged libguile.  The proprietary
product installation should do what?  Check for GMP-enablement in
libguile and choke, or just install?

> If it is not too much hassle,

Methinks it is.  I also doubt any of my "clients" use big nums,
but I put no constraints on their Scheme code, either.

> What I'm trying to say is that we should not make
> ourselves a lot of work to keep the fall back be efficient.

Fallback isn't the issue.  You're talking about a new
library with new usage restrictions.  Think:  new name, too.

> >   3) Ask the relevant parties whether or not they might be willing to
> >      extend the guile exception to GMP, i.e. add a special Guile
> >      clause to the GMP license.
> 
> That would be a solution,

It would preclude needing to rename.