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 DAA28139; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:39:25 +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 DAA28335 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:39:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from favie.faith.gr.jp (favie.faith.gr.jp [61.127.175.250]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5J1dK109471 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:39:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (dhcp7.faith.gr.jp [192.168.1.17]) by favie.faith.gr.jp (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14340; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:39:08 +0900 To: skaller@ozemail.com.au Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Caml toplevel and readline In-Reply-To: <3B2E2D9E.A85C2201@ozemail.com.au> References: <20010618093209.C12678@pauillac.inria.fr> <20010618184841N.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <3B2E2D9E.A85C2201@ozemail.com.au> 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: <20010619103908W.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:39:08 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: John Max Skaller > Jacques Garrigue wrote: > > > As long as you distribute the special runtime containing readline > > separately from the toplevel, this reasoning is OK. > > Hang on! I already have libreadline. > I don't want INRIA to distribute it, just detect if I already > have it. If I do, I would like to be able to link it in > to the top level. With the FSF definition of linking, linking with a dll is exactly the same as including the object code. Otherwise the GPL would be nothing more than the LGPL. Here is the relevant quote from the GPL FAQ: Q. If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? A. Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. > Alternatively, why not build the toplevel > with ledit? I suppose that most people at INRIA are already using it with ledit, so they didn't think of including it. Also, ledit requires libunix, but I don't know if the terminal capacities included in ocamlrun would be enough in this case. The way it works currently, you probably need pipes. But all this should be solvable. > > But the first man making a custom toplevel is dead: > > having both in the same file won't do. > > I am the one linking it into the toplevel, not INRIA. > It will have no impact on me, since I do not use the top > level for producing code (only for testing the occasional > small fragments). The standard distribution already contains a labltk toplevel, linked in custom mode. And INRIA distributes binaries. > It's doubtful if the FSF licences mean much > anyhow. Python uses readline by default in its top level, > if available. There are lots of Python programs out there, > being run with a binary with readline linked in, which > are not licenced GPL, Python itself being an example. As was pointed out recently, Python has just switched to GPL. I don't know whether this is related to readline, but clearly if you start using GPL'd libraries, you should expect a strong pressure for making everything GPL'd. As section 5 of the GPL states, you do not have to accept the license. But if you do not accept it you shouldn't use the code. I think this is clear enough in spirit, and I see nothing wrong in that. Cheers, Jacques Garrigue ------------------- 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