scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files

To: Lionel Elie Mamane <lmamane-scsh-list-2003-10-29@conuropsis.org>
Subject: Re: possible licensing issues with some scsh source files
From: Anthony Carrico <acarrico@memebeam.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:00:21 -0500
Cc: scsh-news <scsh-news@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:42:50PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I have recently become the Debian package maintainer of scsh. I have
> already updated it to 0.6.4 and fixed some nasty packaging bugs, but
> in the course of checking if everything is OK, I have found some
> non-free copyright licenses in some files.

Thanks for taking up the Debian package. I agree that the license
issues must be sorted out. I'd like to see Sunterlib
(http://www.scsh.net/resources/sunterlib.html) and the other scsh
resources packaged for Debian too, are you interested in coordinating
that?

Debian's policy will create some troubles for scripts that look in
/usr/local/lib to find packages, since Debian can't populate
/usr/local/lib.

Clean separation of the libraries from the system for distribution,
and clean integration of separately distributed libraries into an
installation -- these are the bane of Lisp! I started Sunterlib (along
with Martin) not because I thought putting all those libraries
together was a good idea, but because it seemed like the only workable
option -- Sunterlib and Scsh shouldn't be monolithic. Note that these
license issues wouldn't be as severe if the proprietary-licensed
libraries could be distributed seperately (assuming the compiler
itself doesn't depend on them).

-- 
Anthony Carrico

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>