LGPL usage in ./knots/web-server.scm and ./doc/index.texi?

jas commented

2026-03-28 11:45:36 +01:00

Contributor

Hi. The package uses GPLv3+ license, but these two files refers to LGPL. Is that intentional, or just an oversight? Debian packaging becomes easier if lesser licenses are used. If this is intentional, could you add a copy of the LGPL in the repository?

./knots/web-server.scm:;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
./doc/index.texi:it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as

Hi. The package uses GPLv3+ license, but these two files refers to LGPL. Is that intentional, or just an oversight? Debian packaging becomes easier if lesser licenses are used. If this is intentional, could you add a copy of the LGPL in the repository? ``` ./knots/web-server.scm:;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public ./doc/index.texi:it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as ```

cbaines commented

2026-03-29 19:05:46 +02:00

Owner

At least in the ./knots/web-server.scm case, this reflects that some of this code did come from Guile Fibers. Maybe it's worth considering switching all of Guile Knots to LGPLv3+?

At least in the `./knots/web-server.scm` case, this reflects that some of this code did come from Guile Fibers. Maybe it's worth considering switching all of Guile Knots to LGPLv3+?

jas commented

2026-03-29 20:54:31 +02:00

Author

Contributor

I don't have an opinion, but LGPLv3+ allows upgrading the code to GPLv3+, so even if you copied code then using GPLv3+ is fine. A comment describing that helps though. OTOH, maybe license consistency with fibers is nice, which would argue for LGPLv3+ everywhere. But this is really your call, and either works fine for Debian as long as the license is clear.

cbaines commented

2026-03-30 11:21:22 +02:00

Owner

Ok, let's just stick with GPLv3+ then for now, I've fixed the inconsistencies.

Rows
Columns

LGPL usage in ./knots/web-server.scm and ./doc/index.texi? #5