Why GPL instead of LGPL? Why no linking exception? about rescript-compiler HOT 16 CLOSED

Still working on this, the current situation is actually closer to what you've asked for than what we thought it was, since most of the source files claim they are under the LGPL with a 'linking exception' (text which was copied from the js_of_ocaml source files), even though the README file says GPL.

I'll put up a pull request tomorrow to clean this all up, switching the license over to LGPL v3, along with a rewritten 'additional linking permission' which should provide equivalent generosity to the js_of_ocaml license situation.

from rescript-compiler.

cc @kpfleming

from rescript-compiler.

Thanks for the detailed analysis! It looks like we might have been a bit too conservative in our license choice for this project, so I'll review the situation and we'll decide whether we can also use the LGPL (with or without the linking exception).

from rescript-compiler.

Thanks for looking into it @kpfleming!

from rescript-compiler.

Thanks!

from rescript-compiler.

@kpfleming , I am starting to adding some libraries in lib directory, maybe we should add linking exception in the README?

from rescript-compiler.

Sorry for the delay, I'll get this patch completed tomorrow and post a pull request.

from rescript-compiler.

cool, thanks!

from rescript-compiler.

I think we already updated the LICENSE with linking exception, re-open if you have more questions

from rescript-compiler.

People have some concern about the current LICENSE.
It seems I did not check carefully, the LICENSE is updated to LGPL but README is not updated.
Should we also add a linking exception? cc @kpfleming

from rescript-compiler.

I'd prefer to have the README file only refer to the LICENSE file, not repeat the licensing information. The first sentence under 'License' in the README file should just refer readers to the LICENSE file, and there's no longer any need to refer to js_of_ocaml.

from rescript-compiler.

it looks good to me, would you do the change? thanks

[email protected] At: 10/07/16 10:24:15" data-digest="From: [email protected] At: 10/07/16 10:24:15" style="">
From: [email protected] At: 10/07/16 10:24:15
To: [email protected]
Cc: HONGBO ZHANG (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX), [email protected]
Subject: Re: [bloomberg/bucklescript] Why GPL instead of LGPL? Why no linking exception? (#5)

I'd prefer to have the README file only refer to the LICENSE file, not repeat the licensing information. The first sentence under 'License' in the README file should just refer readers to the LICENSE file, and there's no longer any need to refer to js_of_ocaml.
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

from rescript-compiler.

should be LGPL now

from rescript-compiler.

I might have missed something, but it seems like README.md referes to COPYING-file which is the license text for GPLv3, even if the source code and LICENSE mentions LGPLv3 with the linking exception.

from rescript-compiler.

@MasseR IIUC, there is a COPYING.LESSER file (cc @kpfleming )

from rescript-compiler.

Right, this is intentional, because the LGPL incorporates the GPL by reference, so both licenses must be present.

from rescript-compiler.