reword the license explanation

[StefanKarpinski]

We should explain that the project as a while is GPL while the core language is MIT and is then linked into the repl and other interfaces along with a collection of GPL and non-GPL libraries.

[ViralBShah]

I don't think we need to explain anything. The project as a whole is a combination of multiple sub-projects, each of which has its own license.

If I only want to use the julia core without deadline support, then I have a fully MIT license setup. I could link the .so file to my own REPL also. If I use FFTW, deadline, etc., it is GPL.

So, while I agree that we should clarify, the clarification should be along these lines. I do not agree with the first part of your statement, as it is a bit misleading - but the second part is fine.

[StefanKarpinski]

I just meant that we should explain all of that. Jeff seemed to have a pretty clear explanation when we were talking about it. We should put that in writing.

On Oct 16, 2011, at 11:37 AM, "Viral B. Shah"[email protected] wrote:

I don't think we need to explain anything. The project as a whole is a combination of multiple sub-projects, each of which has its own license.

If I only want to use the julia core without deadline support, then I have a fully MIT license setup. I could link the .so file to my own REPL also. If I use FFTW, deadline, etc., it is GPL.

So, while I agree that we should clarify, the clarification should be along these lines. I do not agree with the first part of your statement, as it is a bit misleading - but the second part is fine.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#225 (comment)