What is the license?

[mattl]

You have GPLv3 in the repo.

You link to a GPLv3 button on the README.

You say it's LGPL-llke.

You have some Emacs-commune like requirements.

[boriel]

ZX Basic was originally GPLv3, but that was a problem because files created by the compiler might contain code from library-asm/ and library/ directories respectively.

Hence, to allow people to create closed source re-distributable binaries using that runtime code, these 2 folders and its related content are licensed MIT.

That of LGPL-like must be a reminiscence of versions prior 1.4.x and must be removed. Will change that.

[donaldr3]

You may want to take a look at how GNU Bison handled similar issues, see http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bison.git/tree/src/parse-gram.c and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF. You'll also want to take a look at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html for instructions on license notices.

[boriel]

Just for reference there is a further elaboration of the licensing situation in #695 . It's still confusing to me, but maybe it clear things up.

No. It's explained here:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/13256/using-agpl-package-for-a-saas

Basically if you have the compiler code isolated (e.g. in a Docker container or in a separate directory -unmodified-), and your tool invokes it that's ok.

But if you modify the compiler source code to be used in a SaaS publicly by users those changes must be made public under the same license too.

[Jookia]

I deleted my comments, I don't need a response: I'm confused, and I was just trying to point to that issue for reference to aid anyone else confused about the supposed contradiction like I am.