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 EAA04099; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:27:45 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 EAA04084 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:27:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f4V2Rg108250 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 04:27:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id LAA17580; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:27:32 +0900 (JST) To: bpr@best.com Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CDK license In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010531112732Q.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:27:32 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > I notice that the CDK license is GPL, rather than LGPL. I've read the > discussions of GPL vs LGPL, and I'm not unsympathetic to the Free > Software cause, but (speaking for myself here) as a commercial OCaml user > I won't be able to use the CDK for this reason. So, for instance, I'll end > up grabbing lablgtk and PCRE directly from the source where their authors > chose to release it under LGPL, rather than using the CDK. On the same line of thought, the ocaml compiler is released under the QPL, which is not compatible with the GPL. This means that you cannot build a toplevel including any library under the GPL, since it would be in contradiction with either of the two licenses. At the very least, it seems necessary to add a clause to the GPL, saying that linking to QPLed libraries is allowed, just as RMS himself suggested for KDE software. Another remark is that lablgtk-1.2.0 contains a COPYING file, saying that the library itself is LGPL, examples are more or less public domain, and applications are _not_ open source. Claiming that all this is GPL is clearly wrong. This COPYING is not there, and no README file either, which is the only documentation for lablgtk :-) (This is not a rant: I am the one who didn't check) Best regards, Jacques Garrigue ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr