From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188A0BC6B for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:41:54 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJPr8UbLENaMnmdsb2JhbACOEQEBAQEHBAYFIg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,278,1186351200"; d="scan'208";a="2961628" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2007 12:43:15 +0200 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l8KAgVet017104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:42:32 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJPr8UbLENaMnmdsb2JhbACOEQEBAQEHBAYFIg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,278,1186351200"; d="scan'208";a="2961626" Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.140]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2007 12:43:13 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAACvq8UZ5LHvc/2dsb2JhbAAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,278,1186324200"; d="scan'208";a="194627108" Received: from ppp121-44-123-220.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.123.220]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2007 20:13:10 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: [ANN] coThreads 0.10 From: skaller To: Zheng Li Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <87abrhka16.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> References: <87lkb5fe3f.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> <87sl5d8cgd.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> <46F174D9.5060900@ujf-grenoble.fr> <877imm2z7h.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> <1190249430.6642.1.camel@rosella.wigram> <20070920142938.d48552f2.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <1190272316.23116.34.camel@rosella.wigram> <20070920175233.a510630b.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <87abrhka16.fsf@pps.jussieu.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:43:09 +1000 Message-Id: <1190284989.6770.28.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46F24E97.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0200,:01 ocaml:01 lgpl:01 lgpl:01 restrictive:01 gcc:01 bug:01 restrictive:01 haskell:01 haskell:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml's:01 readline:01 0.10:98 ffau:98 On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 10:37 +0200, Zheng Li wrote: > Hi, > > Erik de Castro Lopo writes: > > skaller wrote: > >> CoThreads is GPL, not even LGPL, let alone LGPL with linking exception, > > I posted a request to the CoThreads mailing list for a licence change > > to LGPL with linking exception. > > Yes. I have no problem to change the licence to another one if desired by the > community. I can change it since next release. Is LGPL+linking exception the > right one? It depends how restrictive you *intend* to be. BSD, MIT, Boost, Creative Commons, etc are for genuinely free software. Free as in FFAU: Free for Any Use. Do what you like with it! GPL is if you want to prevent anyone using it who hides any source code (most commercial use). LGPL+linking X is when you don't mind if people hide their own source, as long as they don't hide yours. My opinion is: for a MAJOR public executable like gcc, GPL is OK. For major libraries like glibc, LGPL (with linking permitted) would be ok. For code which has hardly any developers or users, if you wish to encourage the widest possible use, the most permissive licence (eg BSD) is probably the best: why exclude potential users who may help with bug reports or patches? IMHO *especially* commercial users who put funds into it and make a commitment, are even more likely to help with maintenance and development. Unless or until you expect to actually make money out of the code itself, restrictive licences are counter-productive .. in my opinion of course. EG: GHC Haskell is currently trying to dump GMP because of the licence. GMP is LGPL, GHC is BSD: dependence on GMP is therefore a serious barrier to people using Haskell in industry.. not what the authors want. (Plain LGPL doesn't have a static linking exception as Ocaml's libraries do). Another *famous* example is 'readline()', the code that does line editing for bash. Why is Ocaml's top level so crappy, with no editing? Because of readline()'s GPL licence it can't be used, because GPL is a virus, it propagates to anything it touches. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net