Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released

[William Chesters <williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk>]

skaller writes:
 > I've been working on a product using ocaml for some time,
 > and I need to make money out of it. The new licence seems
 > to preclude this, forcing me to give away my source.

IANAL but I don't think it does---you're in the same situation as with
many other software tools, not least gcc.  Don't forget that Richard
\begin{ocker}pinko commie beardie\end{ocker} Stallman would rather you
used the GPL for libraries precisely because the LGPL doesn't have the
virality which he wants (and you object to).

FWIW I applaud the new licensing arrangements.  They are quite simple
while respecting the concerns both of people who want to write
commercial code (with their nice free compiler ;) --- cf Clean) and of
the authors who want to be guaranteed credit for their great work.

 > I think there is a gross misunderstanding of 'freedom'
 > here. Do we want 'free software' to consist of a combination
 > of code submitted by amateurs, and people employed by
 > institutions, most of which are funded by theft (taxation)?
 > Why are people that expect to work on software and actually
 > get paid for it by the users, being discriminated against?

1) have a little think about that "institutional theft" jibe
   (hint: what does the N in INRIA stand for?)
2) re amateur code, go and have a look round the internet sometime;
   you will find there is quite a lot of it about nowadays