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 PAA16104; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:44:45 +0100 (MET) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA16109 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:44:45 +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 IAA08192 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:12:07 +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 fB77C5T16537 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:12:06 +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 AAA01465; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:11:32 -0700 (MST) Received: (from rms@localhost) by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id fB77BWq01785; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:11:32 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:11:32 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200112070711.fB77BWq01785@aztec.santafe.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f From: Richard Stallman To: yoriyuki@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp CC: luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr, jfield@us.ibm.com, caml-list@inria.fr In-reply-to: <20011207090958P.yoriyuki@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp> (message from YAMAGATA yoriyuki on Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:09:58 +0900) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: <200112010323.fB13NGb18105@aztec.santafe.edu> <20011204195356.A22127@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <200112060246.fB62kBw00747@aztec.santafe.edu> <20011207090958P.yoriyuki@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Many of the discussion you saw, is, it seems for me, related to alleged ambiguity of the statement "provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications" in the beginning of the section 6. of LGPL. People are afraid that, in the end, this clause forces developer to provide the source of their "work that uses the Library", or something making reverse engineering easy (like unstriped executable.) I think this is much ado about nothing, since the LGPL explicitly says it is sufficient to provide object files to the customer. A court would hardly adopt a strained interpretation of "modification for the customer's own use" against that explicit statement. But I will take a look at this--some day when I have time. Unfortunately it can't be soon. Other higher-priority issues are ahead of it. ------------------- 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