From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AEF8BC3F for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9PEiCRj026034 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:44:12 +0200 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 QAA23699 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:44:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9PEi8FS026027 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:44:10 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp217-99.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.217.99]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PEgaOU032697; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:12:36 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announce: Schoca-0.2.3 released From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Cc: David Brown , caml-list In-Reply-To: <417CB289.1010700@exomi.com> References: <1098642597.3075.32.camel@pelican.wigram> <20041025025832.GA1582@old.davidb.org> <20041025.123834.26988978.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20041025050127.GA3599@old.davidb.org> <417CB289.1010700@exomi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098715355.3075.279.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 26 Oct 2004 00:42:35 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 417D113C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 417D1138.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 gpl:01 readline:01 gpl:01 readline:01 binary:01 tarball:01 binary:01 statically:01 amusing:01 dlopen:01 unloaded:01 glebe:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 18:00, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > I really don't know what the legal interpretation of that would be. I do: creating a compatible component without actually deriving from GPL sources doesn't breach copyright. In particular, complying to an interface just by itself cannot breach copyright. So, for example, a program which was able to accept readline -- and is able to do so *without* reading any GPL headers and *without* reading a header derived from it -- doesn't have to be GPL. This has nothing to do with what Stallman wants, it's a universal property of Copyright. So the code *before* linkage against readline doesn't need to be GPL. Once linked against readline the result probably does have to be GPL. There is actually an example of this: Python. The top level interpreter does use readline. Yet Python sources definitely aren't GPL. The actual binary, when linked against readline, probably is. So if you install Python with an RPM, its a GPL version you have installed. If you use the tarball the source isn't GPL, but as with the RPM the binary is. I don't see that linking statically or dynamically makes a difference .. except for the amusing situation that if you actually used dlopen and a shared library, the licence would change dynamically as you loaded and unloaded the library . :))) Oh .. Python doesn't display the GPL licence interactively .. even with readline linked in .. (which is probably a breach of the GPL of readline) If you have Python installed, type 'license()' in the top level .. it's quite interesting. -- 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