Re: [ANN] Specl 3 released

[Romulo <romuloab@...>]

> 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.

Sorry, the Lua one: http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html

>> 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 :)

Not at all. I'm just playing safe. For now I don't have any
requirement to redistribute my test suite (my product is SaaS), but we
may have an intranet later on, and this counts as redistribution. I
understand there are workarounds, such as not publishing the tests, or
simply doesn't link anything to them, but why worry about it?


This GPL debate isn't new and I am not attempting to start a
discussion. Sorry for the noise.

--rb