Home     |     .Net Programming    |     cSharp Home    |     Sql Server Home    |     Javascript / Client Side Development     |     Ajax Programming

Ruby on Rails Development     |     Perl Programming     |     C Programming Language     |     C++ Programming     |     IT Jobs

Python Programming Language     |     Laptop Suggestions?    |     TCL Scripting     |     Fortran Programming     |     Scheme Programming Language


 
 
Cervo Technologies
The Right Source to Outsource

MS Dynamics CRM 3.0

Scheme Programming Language

dr scheme; somewhat legal question


Hello:

Can Dr Scheme be used to create non-Open Source, commercial software?
I am unable to decipher what the license stipulates.

Thanks,

Mayer

On 16 Apr 2007 13:40:53 -0700, "Mayer" <mayer.goldb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Can Dr Scheme be used to create non-Open Source, commercial software?

Yes, so long as your product includes only _unmodified_ versions of
PLT's redistributable code - that is, linkable binaries and code you
produce by compiling libraries distributed in source form.  PLT's
compiler and runtime sources are also available but are not included
in the normal distribution.

If you modify the source of the runtime or any provided library and
then use the modified version in your software, under the LGPL you are
required to release the modified sources _except_ in the case where
you (or your company) use the software exclusively in-house.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html#TOC3

>I am unable to decipher what the license stipulates.

That's what lawyers are for.  They also make pretty good landfill.

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address

"Mayer" <mayer.goldb@gmail.com> writes:
> Can Dr Scheme be used to create non-Open Source, commercial
> software?  I am unable to decipher what the license stipulates.

Short answer: Yes.

George Neuner <gneune@comcast.net> writes:
> Yes, so long as your product includes only _unmodified_ versions of
> PLT's redistributable code - that is, linkable binaries and code you
> produce by compiling libraries distributed in source form.  PLT's
> compiler and runtime sources are also available but are not included
> in the normal distribution.

> If you modify the source of the runtime or any provided library and
> then use the modified version in your software, under the LGPL you
> are required to release the modified sources _except_ in the case
> where you (or your company) use the software exclusively in-house.

> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html#TOC3

A slightly longer but still shorter than the above answer: if you
don't modify PLT code, then you can do (almost) whatever you want to
do with it.  If you do modify PLT sources, then these modifications
should be available, but none of your code (ie, if you improve PLT, do
it publicly, but your code is your code).

Another short version: the intention of PLT is to make it easy for any
kind of applications -- open or closed -- to be built using it.

--
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:40:53 -0500, Mayer <mayer.goldb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can Dr Scheme be used to create non-Open Source, commercial software?
> I am unable to decipher what the license stipulates.

This question seems to come up pretty often, isn't it in an FAQ or some  
such somewhere?

--
Aaron Hsu <aaron.@sacrificumdeo.net>
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he  
could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:07:05 -0500, "Aaron Hsu"

<aaron.@sacrificumdeo.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:40:53 -0500, Mayer <mayer.goldb@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Can Dr Scheme be used to create non-Open Source, commercial software?
>> I am unable to decipher what the license stipulates.

>This question seems to come up pretty often, isn't it in an FAQ or some  
>such somewhere?

A lot of people seem to have trouble understanding the terms of the
open source licenses that are available, despite the fact that they
try to be straightforward and avoid legal jargon.

A FAQ could try to restate the license more simply, but simplification
risks misinterpretation of the actual terms by the reader of the FAQ.
Additionally, because the license could be applied in many different
ways, it would be difficult to present enough example cases to answer
a majority of the questions that could arise.

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address

Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Stumble it | Powered by Megasolutions Inc