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 QAA17200; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:14:00 +0100 (MET) 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 QAA16658 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:13:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fA9FDwn14900 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:13:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (patrick@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.6/8.11.5) with ESMTP id fA9FDgT81141; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:13:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from patrick@watson.org) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:13:41 -0500 (EST) From: Patrick M Doane To: Sven cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml In-Reply-To: <20011109095943.A8267@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> Message-ID: <20011109100719.J80907-100000@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Sven wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:30:56PM -0500, Patrick M Doane wrote: > > No, the worse that happens is that you must distribute the .cmo, .cmi, .cmx, > and possibly .o, hopefully with a working makefile, but this last one is not > demanded. As mentioned before - I don't think this is true. The LGPL is very clear that the user must be able to modify the work (i.e. the application and not the library). This is not possible to do with .cm[iox] files. Also, I still must permit users to reverse engineer my application. It is standard practice to strip an executable of all symbols to prevent users from snooping around in the code. Even if all I had to do was include object files, the names of identifiers would still be intact. > The reason for that, in the C context (you need the .o only), is so if you > link with a buggy version of the LGPLed library, your client, or whatever, can > correct the LGPLed library, or grab a fixed version from the net, and rebuild > your app without the bug. This is a good goal - but it's not what the LPGL says. > Is this still unaceptable, or do you think this clarification will be ok with > you ? It may be acceptable to me, but probably not for my employeer or clients who work in vertical markets that are very sensitive about proprietary information. Patrick ------------------- 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