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 PAA15821; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:43:54 +0100 (MET) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA15964 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:43:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA25803 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:12:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from pele.santafe.edu (pele.santafe.edu [192.12.12.119]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fB73Cpb09406; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:12:55 +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 UAA26756; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:12:06 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rms@localhost) by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id fB73C6001570; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:12:06 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 20:12:06 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200112070312.fB73C6001570@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: <20011206132606.A6756@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> (message from Sven on Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:26:06 +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> <200112060246.fB62kBw00747@aztec.santafe.edu> <20011206132606.A6756@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > 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