From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA13542 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:21:34 +0100 (MET)
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 KAA03013 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:24:23 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mail5.svr.pol.co.uk (mail5.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.20])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA08988
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:24:22 +0100 (MET)
Received: from modem-32.prozac.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.85.32] helo=toy.william.bogus)
	by mail5.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.11 #0)
	id 11uuNY-0007eS-00
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 06 Dec 1999 09:24:20 +0000
Received: (from williamc@localhost)
	by toy.william.bogus (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA21287;
	Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:21:23 GMT
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:21:23 GMT
Message-Id: <199912060921.JAA21287@toy.william.bogus>
From: William Chesters <williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released
In-Reply-To: <3849537C.4595B14C@maxtal.com.au>
References: <19991119183057.60471@pauillac.inria.fr>
	<3849537C.4595B14C@maxtal.com.au>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under Emacs 20.2.1
Sender: weis

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