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 LAA05694; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:51:47 +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 LAA05716 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:51:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.6.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5F9pjX28443 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:51:45 +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 LAA12671; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:50:55 +0200 Received: from luther by lambda.u-strasbg.fr with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15AqJo-0002EP-00; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:55:08 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:55:08 +0200 To: Chris Curtis Cc: leary@nwlink.com, Jacques Garrigue , caml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Repeat: is there a Qt binding for OCaml? Message-ID: <20010615115508.B8338@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Sven LUTHER Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:25:06AM -0600, Chris Curtis wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:51:54 -0700 > leary@nwlink.com wrote: > > Any chance of changing to or adding GPL? > > PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't. I agree that readline would be > cool, but in return you give up the ability to use the > toplevel in any non-GPL environment. GPL is a very big > hammer; let's not go swinging it hastily. Unless you dual license like TrollTech finally did for Qt. This said, i am not asking for a GPLed version of ocaml, please don't take it so. That said, i have just checked, the toplevel directory is under the QPL, i suppose it links also to all the LGPLed part of the ocaml runtime, altough a quick glance at the corresponding makefile don't show that clearly. Would a LGPLed version of the toplevel files solve this, i don't know, i just aksed the debian legal mailing list about this, will forward what they tell me about it. 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