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 SAA17934; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:28:34 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA22759 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:28:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i86GSUsl016387 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:28:32 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp210-32.lns2.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.210.32]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i86GSP4Y059400; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:58:25 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <20040906.203420.68034706.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> References: <7810902A-FF99-11D8-8747-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> <20040906.113527.125105732.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1094463492.3352.1061.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040906.203420.68034706.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1094488104.3352.1160.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 07 Sep 2004 02:28:24 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 413C902E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 jacques:01 sourceforge:01 gpl:01 lgpl:01 exemption:01 gpl:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 garrigue:01 nsw:01 snail:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 21:34, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > From: skaller > Or will you tell me that using gnu make forces me to put all my software > under the GPL! I have no idea -- that's the point. My guess is the license is unenforcible because it depends on terms such as 'linkage' which can't be well defined in a unique way. The only way acceptable to a court would be 'community consensus' about what constitues linkage. I believe most people believe that at the moment static linkage to even LGPL (without Ocaml exemption) infects, but dynamic linkage doesn't. Given such an absurd distinction I doubt I have any real idea what the GPL actually says for more difficult cases. -- 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