From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA19013; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:37:56 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA19119 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:37:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i397chjq017119 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:38:49 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp116-94.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [150.101.116.94]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i397bdeZ046170; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 17:07:46 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Remi Vanicat Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <877jwpk6dr.dlv@vanicat.homelinux.org> References: <20020104004356.GA1672@mev> <20040408133727.GC29195@excelhustler.com> <20040408145606.GA18473@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <20040408153056.GB30763@excelhustler.com> <20040408164404.GA19556@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <1081491825.20677.89.camel@pelican> <877jwpk6dr.dlv@vanicat.homelinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1081496258.20677.143.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 09 Apr 2004 17:37:39 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 dynamically:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 lgpl:01 stdlib:01 gpl:01 lgpl:01 polluting:01 distro:01 struct:01 ocamlc:01 mli:01 'derived:01 realm:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 201 On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 16:33, Remi Vanicat wrote: > If it is LGPL + special exception (as the stdlib of ocaml) I don't see > the problem. GPL can be a problem thought. Not sure of the 'special exception' but my impression is that whilst one is free to use "as is" an LGPL library by first compiling it, then linking to it, without polluting the licence of the code using it, that freedom doesn't extend to the source itself. If I combine parts of the source of a library with my own sources, my sources are contaminated. My distro is entirely in 'pre-source' form, which makes a mockery of the LGPL. It isn't clear what happens here: (* LGPL_client.ml *) module LGPL.Make(struct type t = int end) ocamlc -i LGPL_client.ml > LGPL_client.mli well, is that a 'derived work' covered by LGPL or is it free for any use? It sure as heck ain't a compiled binary: LGPL is basically "unsustainable gobblegook" outside the realm of C programming. The legal impact would seem to me to be: permission for use isn't explicitly and clearly given, so it doesn't exist. Ocaml itself isn't a problem: the intent is clear, the distro is to be trusted (I won't modify it even if I do find a bug), and there is always an option of a commercial licence. I don't feel so trusting of third parties, and can't expect to require my clients to either. Actually, GODI will probably help enormously, by at least imposing some uniformity on the way in which third party packages are installed, the potential reduced need to fiddle with a third party component may provide enough separation between sources to prevent contamination. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners