Re: GNU and MzScheme's Internal design

["Ji-Yong D. Chung" <virtualcyber@erols.com>]

Hi, you wrote:

> PLT software uses the LGPL, which is considerably less restrictive than
the
> GPL.  Among other things, it doesn't prevent you from building a
commercial
> closed-source application which uses the LGPL'd code.  Therefore, I'm not
> sure what you mean by "taking a chance".  Could you clarify?

    I hope you excuse me if I am not well too well informed.  As I
understand it LGPL says in essence when you can modularize
(separete your program from others) you can disclaim it as
part of being your integral product, so that GNU licensing
scheme does not apply.  So, that generally comes to mean
dll's or dynamic shared libraries (or .binaries).

    From what I understand if one wantsbuild a static version of your stuff,
then you end up having to open source your code -- the problem
here of course is that you may want to include other commercial
software of library that may link into your system (even if you
could GPL your code) which is not GPLed.

    In any case, I feel this eventually lead one play the game:
how can I compile or modularize the system so that
I can preserve my software status independent
of others.

     This particlar dicussion has been retread probably
one too many time in this mailing group or others ...
so, my comments here are also probably redundant.

> >
> > (2) insufficient number of easily accessible
> > documentation of its internal designs and ideas
> > (I am not putting MzScheme down, as this is
> > standard practice with most open source libs)
> >
> >     When one incorporates other people's library,
> > unless that library is well understood, the borrower
> > ends up treating that library like a plutonium, because one cannot
> > modify the borrowed source code with confidence,
> > for the fear of introducing new bugs and problems.
> >
> Quite true, but I assume you've seen "Inside PLT Mzscheme" at
>
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/doc/insidemz/index.htm

    That is the first thing I looked at -- what I meant by a design
documentation is not that.

    By the way, my above comments were generally directed at that class
of libraries which are to become "integral part" of one's system
that are being developed.  Obviously, different situations
require different requirements for library being incorporated.


> I'm personally extremely impressed with the quality of the PLT
documentation.

    PLT scheme has got extremely GOOD set of documentation --
it is just that sometimes, as I am, one is trying to incorporate
some part of someone else's code into the system being
developed, I'd like to understand it thoroughly before I
write it.

    This situation probably does not happen often with MzScheme
type of system.  Generally speaking, who would want to remove
REPL loop, modify the internals and do other strange
things to the system?

> Well, good luck :-)  Brent Fulgham is building a version of AOLServer that
> uses mzscheme as a scripting language, so you might want to ask him what
> the status of that is.

    Thanks.  I will go back and re-read his emails first.