Re: What if Guile changed its license to be LGPL?

[Marius Vollmer]

Per Bothner <address@hidden> writes:

[ extending the license exception of Guile to GMP ]
> Stallman (and Torbjörn) may be favorably inclined to such as
> exception; as Guile maintainer I think you should at least bring up
> the issue with RMS.

Yes, I will.  I'll wait a bit to see whether any other arguments
surface in favor of weakening the license of GMP.

> > What about creating a library that is reasonably compatible to GMP but
> > is simple minded and comes with a very unrestrictive license.  It's
> > sole purpose would be to make use of the permissive license of
> > libguile (and of libgcj, if I understand your intention right).
> 
> Somebody wrote such a library.  Some years ago there were problems
> with some use of GMP for encryption.  I don't remember the details,
> but part of the problem was that since they were linking explicitly
> against the GMP API, the FSF argued they were effectivly linking
> with the GMP, even if they were separate.  That was resolved by
> somebody writing an API-compatible very of GMP.

Yes, I thought I remembered something like that but couldn't
immediately find more details.  If such a library exists, we are
settled and can use GMP exclusively, no?  Anyone wanting to invoke the
exception in Guile's license can use the unrestricted substitute-GMP,
right?

Do you know more about this library?  Where could I find it?