Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    > 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.

    Yes, i understand that, but the whole point of this is that the customer get
    the right to use the program he buys, isn't it ?

I thought the point was whether the requirements of the LGPL on
application developers were impractical to fulfill.  I'm explaining
that they are not impractical.

    But anyway, this is not the point here, and would be difficult to obtain,
    apart from providing full source code of the app.

Exactly.  To get object files for one machine only is no more limiting
than to get the executable for one machine only.  Of course, it is a
bad thing if the application is non-free, and not just in a practical
sense.  But if the OCAML developers have already decided to allow
non-free applications to use the library--a decision I might agree
with--then we need not argue about whether these non-free applications
are good or bad.

    > 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.

    mmm, but then i suppose the libgcc is not licenced under the LGPL, is it ? 

Correct--it has a different license.  They might want to take a look
at that license.  Many variations on it can be made.
-------------------
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