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 LAA05240; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:31:09 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 LAA04963 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:31:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.6.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5F9V6511415 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:31:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lambda.u-strasbg.fr (mail@lambda.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.63]) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12563; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:30:12 +0200 Received: from luther by lambda.u-strasbg.fr with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15Apzk-0002D1-00; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:34:24 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:34:24 +0200 To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: skaller@ozemail.com.au, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Caml toplevel and readline Message-ID: <20010615113424.A8338@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> References: <3B2796C1.9144F7AE@ozemail.com.au> <20010614154525K.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010614154525K.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Sven LUTHER Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 03:45:25PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > From: John Max Skaller > > > I find the ocaml top level 'ocaml' very clumbsy to use, > > compared with, say, Python's top level, because it > > doesn't understand line editing. Any chance of optionally > > building it with gnu_readline? > > No. Gnu-readline is a well-known example of library released under the > GPL, which makes it incompatible with the caml toplevel, which is > covered by the QPL :-) mmm, did not the kde guys take the version of libreadline that was distributed with libc6 (which is under lgpl i think) and work from that ? But then it was during the horrible kde/qt vs FSF war, so ... Also notice, i think to remember, would need checking though, that if you allow a program to link to a GPLed library as an alternative, then there is no problem, so some people may be able to build ocaml with libreadline, and other without, without further complication on the ocaml lincencing status. Not sure though. If the ocaml team want to have more information on this issue, i can ask advice on debina-legal, if you want ? Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr