[mercury-users] Mercury Anarchive proposal

[Peter Wang]

On 2007-02-23, Ondrej Bojar <bojar at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> 
> Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote:
> >No strong constraints here, but you might consider GPL because it's
> >already well known and understood.
> 
> My crude knowledge says: GPL is 'sticky'. If your project contains anything 
> GPL'd, you are not allowed to give anyone your executable, unless you give 
> out our source, too. LGPL is a better option here, but it might have an 
> unacceptable condition for someone. (I do not know about such a condition, 
> but I do not know the details.)

I think enforcing a specific licence is unnecessary and would be
counter-productive.  The LGPL is pretty ugly as well (although the
Mercury standard library and runtime do use it).  Proprietary users
essentially need to dynamically link against any LGPL libraries or
distribute object files of the proprietary parts of their programs.

Otherwise I think it's a good idea.  I'm fine with SF.

Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-users at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-users at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-users-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------