Re: [ANN] Specl 3 released

["Gary V. Vaughan" <gary@...>]

[[Full disclosure: When I said I used the wrong email address to post
to this list with the Specl v1 and v2 release announcements, I was
referring to my gary@gnu.org account.]]

On 20 Mar 2013, at 19:51, Romulo <romuloab@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:44 AM, steve donovan
> <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Romulo <romuloab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Looks really interesting, but have you considered the MIT or LGPL
>>> licenses instead of GPL?

The Lesser GPL is not really used for new software these days, as it
leaves your code open to "Tivoisation" and other misuses.

Which MIT license do you mean, btw?  There are variants:

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License

Both of these are GPL compatible though.

>> Doesn't really feel like a big issue for a testing support tool....
>> it's unlikely to be embedded in an application.

Right.

> That's true, but you don't really have to embed it. If I implement a
> support library, say, for http mocks, and require it, does my support
> library fall under the GPL, or this don't count as linking?

The following page should answer your questions, particularly:

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

In any case, it is certainly not my intention to stand in the way of
any reasonable use, reuse, or enhancement (private or contributed)
you would like to work on, or to erect a barrier that prevents you
from using Specl.  If you have specific requirements, I'm sure we can
work something out :)

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT vaughan DOT pe)