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 OAA13681; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:51:42 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA13690 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:51:41 +0100 (MET) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA05679; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:45:45 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:45:45 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: "Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla" Cc: Patrick M Doane , Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Message-ID: <20011109094545.A4395@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20011108232434.Y73712-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20011109124847.A9625@team.ph.inter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20011109124847.A9625@team.ph.inter.net>; from sevillar@team.ph.inter.net on Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 12:48:47PM +0800 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Yeah, this is a slightly misleading statement, unless the OCaml > development team has made a modification to the LGPL similar to what was > done for the Guile license, which is LGPL with one additional clause: > blanket linking is allowed for Guile. (OCaml dev team, is this also the > license under which the runtime exists?) We haven't yet modified the LGPL to remove these silly restrictions on linking with LGPL code, but plan to do so in the near future. We'd be interested in examples of other software projects that did this. You mention Guile, however it seems to be under the (standard) GPL (not even LGPL). > If you read the license, how it works is that if you link *dynamically* > with LGPLed libraries, there are no restrictions on the license of the > linking program. That means you have to have a shared library version. > If you have a statically linked program, or on some system that doesn't > support shared libraries/DLL's, you are going to be in violation of the > lesser GPL by linking to the static versions of the library. Not at all. In case of static linking, the LGPL requires that you give users the ability to re-link your program with modified versions of the LGPL-ed library. In practice, this means that you have to provide the .cmo or .cmx/.o files for your OCaml program in the unlikely event that someone asks for them (in order to exercise his/her LGPL rights of re-linking with modified Caml libraries). No big deal, really, but still silly. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- 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