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 UAA00193; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:35:22 +0100 (MET) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA00179 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:35:16 +0100 (MET) 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 DAA18496 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:47:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from pele.santafe.edu (pele.santafe.edu [192.12.12.119]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fB62lbr22024; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 03:47:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from aztec.santafe.edu (aztec [192.12.12.49]) by pele.santafe.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA28809; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:46:11 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rms@localhost) by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id fB62kBw00747; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:46:11 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 19:46:11 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200112060246.fB62kBw00747@aztec.santafe.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f From: Richard Stallman To: luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr CC: proff@iq.org, dsyme@microsoft.com, gbacon@hiwaay.net, xavier.leroy@inria.fr, jfield@us.ibm.com, caml-list@inria.fr In-reply-to: <20011204195356.A22127@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> (message from Sven on Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:53:56 +0100) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: <20011130015919.97483259CA@suburbia.net> <200112010323.fB13NGb18105@aztec.santafe.edu> <20011204195356.A22127@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk There is always the second solution, which in my opinion would be nice, but still not optimal (well, it works with true arch independent bytecode, but it will not survive investing in hardware of a different arch, but since most people use only i386, this may be moot). That is not really an issue. If you distribute linked executables for computer X, using an LGPL-covered library, the LGP requires you to provide your customer with object files for computer X--but not for any other computer. to be that this guy company is working on some of the leading edge stuff that i read on the FSF pages, from you or someone else i think, may be one of those place were open source will not work. It would be strange if there were such a statement on our web site. We don't do "open source" and we don't agree with the open source movement, so the question of whether it will or won't work in a certain domain is not one we would be very concerned with. If you could tell me which page you saw this in, I'd appreciate that. 1- Users can link with it, statically or dynamically, without any restrictions on the final program. It is easy enough to do that. That is what we did in the GCC support library, libgcc, because it consists mainly of many very simple functions. 2- Users can modify the runtime or the libraries themselves, but then must make their modifications public under the same conditions as the original source. To *require* people to publish modified versions of a program is, in general, unacceptable for free software--such a requirement would make the software non-free. However, to say that *if* the user publishes the modified version he must do so under a certain license is legitimate. That is what the GPL does, for instance. It is also legitimate in a free software license to require publication of the modified library source if an executable containing the modified library is published. Perhaps they would like to do this. ------------------- 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