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 FAA01700; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:49:35 +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 FAA01861 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:49:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from gatekeeper.ph.inter.net (ip3.ph.psi.net [203.176.75.3] (may be forged)) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fA94nWj18756 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 05:49:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from dido.engr.internet.org.ph (unknown [203.176.75.250]) by gatekeeper.ph.inter.net (Postfix) with SMTP id DB91243D04; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:49:26 +0800 (PHT) Received: by dido.engr.internet.org.ph (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:48:47 +0800 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 12:48:47 +0800 From: "Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla" To: Patrick M Doane Cc: Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Message-ID: <20011109124847.A9625@team.ph.inter.net> References: <20011108232434.Y73712-100000@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011108232434.Y73712-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from patrick@watson.org on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:30:56PM -0500  Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:30:56PM -0500, Patrick M Doane wrote: > "The LGPL puts no restrictions at all on programs linked with LGPL-ed > libraries. Thus, users are free to distribute (or not) OCaml-generated > binaries under whatever conditions they like." > 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?) 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. You do need to distribute source code for the OCaml runtime libraries though, with any and all modifications you made to those libraries as well (if any). But you need not distribute source for those programs which are linked dynamically to the runtime libraries. That's why programs like the Linux Yahoo! Messenger client can get away with linking to a LGPLed library like GTK+ without revealing their source code. -- Rafael R. Sevilla +63(2) 8177746 ext. 8311 Programmer, Inter.Net Philippines +63(917) 4458925 http://dido.engr.internet.org.ph/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5CDA17D8 ------------------- 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